Ark Royal and Invincible

Fair enough… but your wording made it seem you were saying that the Mk7 is what the UK would be putting in CVF.

Since the Mk7 gear isn’t being made anymore, it is the AAG that would be installed in CVF if “the American system” is chosen.

So the only meaningful comparison in this discussion of CVF is between just DAX II (improved) and AAG.

I’m aware of the AAG program which as of yet isn’t in service, but I wasn’t refering to that.

I was making the comparison with current in service US MK-7 arrester gear engines that are less advanced then the British DAX-II. MK-7 isn’t much changed now then thirty to forty years ago when DAX-II was fitted to the old Ark Royal.

I should of made that more clear.

Whilst going for the US arrester gear engine is low risk I think MacTaggart Scott still have a fairly low risk system. Remember technology wise the US arrester gear engine isn’t that much changed from those used fifty years ago whilst in all respects DAX-II is a newer concept. Also arrester gear engines made in the US and the UK are not mass produced but rather bespoke effectively hand made systems. MacTaggart Scott despite not making an arrester gear engine in decades has better chance at building one with minimal risk then Converteam does with its EM catapult which is still in prototype stage.

The main advantage that the US built systems have over the UK is the facilaties in the US. If the UK decides on its own arrester gear engines and catapult they will have to be built and tested on land here. Using US facilaties piggy backs of USN/DOD spending.

Wrong!!

EMALS is only half of the new technology for “cat&trap” operations for the USN.

The second part of that is covered by AAG (Advanced Arresting Gear).

http://atg.ga.com/EM/defense/aag/index.php
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/aage-i_2002.pdf

The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) program will retrofit and forward fit Navy aircraft carriers with an electric motor based system that will replace the current MK 7 hydraulic system for aircraft deceleration during recovery operations. AAG allows arrestment of a broader range of aircraft, reduces manning and maintenance, and provides higher reliability and safety margins. GA’s design replaces the mechanical hydraulic ram with rotary engines using simple, proven energy-absorbing water turbines coupled to a large induction motor, providing fine control of the arresting forces.

* The system provides significant benefits over current recovery systems
* Operational capability to recover projected air wing, with renewed service life margins
* Full compatibility with CVN 68-class and CVN 21-class carriers
* Higher availability
* Self-diagnosis and maintenance alerts
* Reduced manning and Total Ownership Cost (TOC)

GA, as the system prime contractor, has assembled a team to design, develop and build this system for prototype testing at the Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES), Lakehurst N.J. beginning in late 2009. Included on this team are the FMI Division of Qinetiq, Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical, ESCO Corporation, ITT Corporation, and Alion Science. The GA team completed a competitive technology demonstration phase and, in 2005, was awarded the follow-on System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. In 2007 the team completed the Critical Design Reviews and began assembling full-scale prototype system components for reliability testing, which began in 2008. This system, designed to replace the current MK 7 arresting gear system, will eventually be installed on the new Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) class aircraft carrier. It will also be installed on USS Nimitz (CVN 68) class aircraft carriers.

Since CVN-78 Ford is scheduled for commissioning in 2015 (may slip to 2016), this gives lots of time for the bugs to be worked out in time for inclusion in CVF by 2020!

Also note that Qinetiq is involved… meaning this is a serious contender for CVF as well.

When the UK government wants advice on fast jets they go to the RAF. So who is going to tell them that this Emperor has no clothes and the jets need to be navy. Certainly not the RAF.

You may be right, but the RAF is very good at the political game. It helps of course that the media can’t get it into their heads that everything that flies isn’t the RAF. I even heard Cmdr Ward, who questioned Green Dave about the Harrier decision, called an RAF pilot on the BBC news. You can’t win!

Given that at least 2 F-35 squadrons training will need to be current for effective carrier ops I wouldn’t be surprised if the RAF has actually outsmarted itself and loses out on the initial buy of these planes, with them instead going to the FAA. The RAF would have to wait for a follow up order (If one is made) to stand up its own F-35 squadrons, or future reviews could determine that the RAF should only have the Typhoon as its fast jet force, suplimented by UCAVs (possibly a joint programme with the FAA!)

Until someone at the top actually has an understanding of defence and its resourse needs, our Armed Forces are going to continue to shrink with every review as more funding is requied for more politically sensitive areas

Agree, though not because of energy recovery (not sure if that’s actually planned, since storing that much electrical energy and particularly charging the “reservoir” so quickly, will be a challenge) but because of maintenance requirements. Is DAX-II a conventional hydraulic ram system or the famous water spray based one? If it’s the latter they may well have a shot, since AAG does have water brakes as well and water spray appears to offer many of the same benefits in reducing deceleration loads on the airframe.

This is all I know about DAX-II taken from Beedles site, I would love to know more:

Landing aircraft would engage the wires of a new type of direct action water-spray arresting gear built by MacTaggart Scott, these could engage aircraft at higher speed than possible with contemporary equipment. A unique feature of the device was its ability to halt all aircraft in the same run-out distance – regardless of weight and landing speed – thus simplifying flight deck operations. The new arresting gear was about one-third the weight and half the cost of the currently standard Mk.13 arrester gear. A single DAX II (sometimes referred to as DA-2) wire was experimentally fitted to HMS Eagle during 1966, and a full set of four to HMS Ark Royal during her 1967-70 major refit (a refit instigated after the cancellation of CVA-01).

The diagram below represents the concept:

That MacTaggart Scott is still around helps significantly going British in this respect also whilst they haven’t made a new set of Arrester gear engines in many years I presume they still provided technical support for the Clemenceau class and other carriers when Ark Royal (the CATOBAR one) retired through the 80’s, 90’s and maybe even now in respect of Sao Paulo’s recent refit. So they have been able to keep their hand in when it comes to arrester gear systems.

DAX-II is waterspray. When it was developed it was meant to be cheaper, lighter, smaller and lighter then the equivalent hydraulic system. It is also meant to be easier on the landing aircraft and run them out to the same place on deck.

Whilst going for the US arrester gear engine is low risk I think MacTaggart Scott still have a fairly low risk system. Remember technology wise the US arrester gear engine isn’t that much changed from those used fifty years ago whilst in all respects DAX-II is a newer concept. Also arrester gear engines made in the US and the UK are not mass produced but rather bespoke effectively hand made systems. MacTaggart Scott despite not making an arrester gear engine in decades has better chance at building one with minimal risk then Converteam does with its EM catapult which is still in prototype stage.

The main advantage that the US built systems have over the UK is the facilaties in the US. If the UK decides on its own arrester gear engines and catapult they will have to be built and tested on land here. Using US facilaties piggy backs of USN/DOD spending.

Agree, though not because of energy recovery (not sure if that’s actually planned, since storing that much electrical energy and particularly charging the “reservoir” so quickly, will be a challenge) but because of maintenance requirements. Is DAX-II a conventional hydraulic ram system or the famous water spray based one? If it’s the latter they may well have a shot, since AAG does have water brakes as well and water spray appears to offer many of the same benefits in reducing deceleration loads on the airframe.

If you’re going for EM catapults, then it’s logical to use EM arresting gear, & recover some of the energy.

Actually on that note I am also tempted to email MacTaggart Scott about if they intend to bid DAX-II for the CVF build.

I would think the US would be very happy with an F35C sell to the UK as it equates to potentially far more money being spent in America.

Unless MacTaggart Scott and Converteam can put forward a good deal with a DAX-II variant and UK EMALS then we will have to buy that off America along with the engineering help to design them in. Also the UK will now have to buy itself into American training for personel.

I’d very surprised as well if the three development F-35Bs weren’t simply re ordered as F-35Cs, or some exchange deal was worked out soon.

There are precedents. Since the JSF programme office will have no trouble disposing of three F-35B (just divert them to the USMC in place of later built aircraft), I’m sure the Yanks will be happy to take the money as a down payment for F-35C, to be delivered later.

I don’t see any justification for a “mixed” squadron, or indeed for any joint F35 force at all. The joint force only made sense when the RAF and FAA brought different planes to the party, which could make up a balanced carrier air group. The end of the SHAR put an end to that. Conventional carrier aviation is a full time specialism, and a full time Fleet Air Arm F35 force therefore needs to be established. I don’t see any room for doubt about this.

In addition to the group training in the US, I would expect to see a lot of dark blue uniforms in a couple of RAF Tornado squadrons for the next decade… specifically the two that will be kept around to transition to F-35C.

With the plan (as currently stated) to be 1 “mixed” F-35C squadron for the carrier and 2 RAF F-35C squadrons, there is scope for a core of RN pilots to keep flying inside RAF Tornado squadrons with periodic rotations to the US for Super Hornet/carrier experience.

This would see more than those 12 trained to re-constitute the RN’s cat&trap fast jet experience base.

Similarly, RN ground/deck crew can go through the same path, with the same result.

They certainly will work out a face saving solution in respect of those F35B. Also the Ski Jump built for F35B tests wont go for waste as the Italians and Spanish need it.

I’d very surprised as well if the three development F-35Bs weren’t simply re ordered as F-35Cs, or some exchange deal was worked out soon. Something like we’ll pay for three Bs now and swap them later for three ‘Cs to help out the USMC ‘B program.

Yes the Janes report was those twelve pilots depending on prior experience will do a full CAT-1 or CAT-2 syllabus on the Goshawk and Hornet. Thats day and night traps and Cat shots. Some were also going to fly Marine corp AV-8B which tells me the navy for at least the last year has been hedging its bets in respect of CATOBAR vs STOVL whatever government won the last election.

Those 12 pilots are now critical to maintain a cadre of experience within the FAA for the next few years.

Wonder when they announce that the three F35B ordered are no longer required, I presume Lock Mart will happily entertain an order swap considering it still means Lightning are being built.

Agreed. we currently have 12 FAA FJ pilots starting a tour in the USN, the ones we would otherwise have used to stand up 801NAS this year. If 800NAS can be sent next year (after scheduled stand down at the end of january) along with the naval haf of 4(R) sqn then that’s a FAA FJ cadre of around 30 pilots learning the ropes of CATOBAR ops. Meanwhile the RAF in binning JFH has in fact delt themselves out of the Carrier game, with all their Harrier pilots to be absorbed by the Typhoon and Tornado forces they will lose any rlevent shipboard experience over then next decade, and be in a much worse position to claim the F-35Cs when the arrive.;)

Take no notice of these ‘mothballing/selling’ stories. What matters is they are both being built. The RN will let the current ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ crop of ne’er do well politicians believe whatever they like, because ten years from now they won’t be the ones making the descisions. The Navy knows for the next ten years the whitehall battles will be dominated by the Pongoes and the Crabs, so they have set their sights on 2020 onwards. And if you think that after all they have sacrificed to get the two carriers, they will meekly let one or both go after completion, you don’t know the RN very well…;):cool:

Indeed thats very much my opinion as well, the carriers construction was saved by the very tight termination clauses built into the contract now to my mind the navy needs to plan for the future regardless of the mothballing/selling stories.

The critical issue now is putting together a credible plan to maintain a core fixed wing pilot capability. Alas they will lose some pilots who will decide to leave the service but some will probably go to the US to support the testing program of the F-35C which does tie into the recent reports that a cadre of FAA pilots were training in the US which makes sense if that is the plan. They can probably swing some slots with US fleet squadrons and Aeronavale as well for other pilots.

After that the Royal Navy will probably have to effectively start from scratch in a few years time by inducting new pilots who will go forward for training in the US. That can be put off for many years (at least 2016/17). Then reform a NAS with a mix cadre of new pilots and the ones who have been kept otherwise occupied for the next few years. Also they should be able to swing some experienced exchange pilots with the USN and Aeronavale who can help instill skills with the new pilots.

Thats the kind of plan the navy now needs to put foward to ensure momentum and keep the RAF out of the equation.