Harrier Carriers: Relevant or failed experiment?

…
Another thing to consider is the Voyager tanker, operating from a friendly base Voyager can support carrier operations from a huge distance.

Pity we can’t find a reason for UOR to get the boom on Voyager to support the P-8 as well….

Didn’t Airtanker come up with a cunning plan to finance booms on some of our tankers from usage charges paid by our allies?

The hardware’s more expensive, but we don’t need as many copies & it’s already designed in, tested, & qualified for use on other types, & will be on the P-8 by the time we could get our tankers fitted with it. That saves a lot of money.

Sorry I meant refuelling probe has to cheaper than fitting booms to our A330’s

P-8 is not configured for a Probe, one would have to be designed in and then qualified at cost to UK MOD. A Boom is an option for the A330 Voyager and has been offered as a retrofit for some of the UK examples by AirTanker. The Australian MOD are paying to clear the KC-30A (A330 Voyager) as a tanker for the P8A and have recently started trials.

Considering all that it would be cheaper for the UK to put a Boom on the tanker than a probe on the ASW jet!

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raaf-kc-30-to-begin-p-8a-refuelling-trials-in-early-422870/
http://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-raf-shows-interest-in-voyager-boom

UK P-8 will be in effect USN standard albeit with a few extra black boxes so they can communicate with UK specific comms systems.

So they will be fitted with a boom receptacle as standard.

Sorry I meant refuelling probe has to cheaper than fitting booms to our A330’s

UK P-8 will be in effect USN standard albeit with a few extra black boxes so they can communicate with UK specific comms systems.

So they will be fitted with a boom receptacle as standard.

Now to lever from Jonesy’s post the lack of availability of support types like E-2’s or S-3’s….is less of a concern for some very interesting reasons.

Comparing to 1982 and Corporate where the UK carrier task force had no Organic AEW and no tanker support. The Sea Harrier had a primitive even for the day ranging radar intended to be used providing a targeting solution against something large like a Tu-142 Bear not a fighter size target. CAP in 1982 relied GCi from the fleet, the radars available to the fleet until Exeter arrived were in effect 1960’s technology and woefully inadequate for the task.

Now compare that to what will be available when the QE class are fully stood up, all ships in the fleet have capable modern radars that can share a data picture. We have an Organic AEW capability that can share its data picture. The F-35B has a bleeding edge AESA radar and EOTS that can share its data picture as well. An F-35B CAP operating from the QE class is not just being responsive to GCI from the fleet, whilst on patrol it can be enhancing the data picture for the fleet acting as an AEW platform tangentially in its own right. Now add in curious and interesting force enablers like the Lynx Wildcat that has Air to Air tracking modes for its AESA and can also share its data picture making it yet another platform that can add information to the Air Warfare commander by plugging gaps.

This is what is so overlooked in F-35 discussions when people get bogged down over instantaneous turn rates, the biggest boon it will offer is its huge data gathering and processing capabilities.

Another thing to consider is the Voyager tanker, operating from a friendly base Voyager can support carrier operations from a huge distance.

Pity we can’t find a reason for UOR to get the boom on Voyager to support the P-8 as well….

As the UK P-8’s have not been built yet should we be looking in to fitting booms to them

Now to lever from Jonesy’s post the lack of availability of support types like E-2’s or S-3’s….is less of a concern for some very interesting reasons.

Comparing to 1982 and Corporate where the UK carrier task force had no Organic AEW and no tanker support. The Sea Harrier had a primitive even for the day ranging radar intended to be used providing a targeting solution against something large like a Tu-142 Bear not a fighter size target. CAP in 1982 relied GCi from the fleet, the radars available to the fleet until Exeter arrived were in effect 1960’s technology and woefully inadequate for the task.

Now compare that to what will be available when the QE class are fully stood up, all ships in the fleet have capable modern radars that can share a data picture. We have an Organic AEW capability that can share its data picture. The F-35B has a bleeding edge AESA radar and EOTS that can share its data picture as well. An F-35B CAP operating from the QE class is not just being responsive to GCI from the fleet, whilst on patrol it can be enhancing the data picture for the fleet acting as an AEW platform tangentially in its own right. Now add in curious and interesting force enablers like the Lynx Wildcat that has Air to Air tracking modes for its AESA and can also share its data picture making it yet another platform that can add information to the Air Warfare commander by plugging gaps.

This is what is so overlooked in F-35 discussions when people get bogged down over instantaneous turn rates, the biggest boon it will offer is its huge data gathering and processing capabilities.

Another thing to consider is the Voyager tanker, operating from a friendly base Voyager can support carrier operations from a huge distance.

Pity we can’t find a reason for UOR to get the boom on Voyager to support the P-8 as well….

so do you guys think RN’s choice for the STOVL carrier over the CTOL one was the right choice?

For us, and our specific requirements, yes it was. It needs an understanding of what our requirement is to come to that though and it leverages off Feds commentary on training.

CVF/QE is a response to the UK Carrier Strike requirement. This is essentially for a platform able to stand off a hostile coast a safe distance and generate a specific surge and sustained sortie rate over a range of targets supporting a range of missions from Fleet Air Defence to tactical recon to CAS and Interdiction. Its not a request for a Fleet Carrier in the traditional sense. Its not optimised for strategic maneuver warfare. Its not optimised for Sea Control or ‘fleet-on-fleet’ actions.

So, given these parameters, we see that one of the key, traditional, drawbacks of STOVL ops….the lack of availability of support types like E-2’s or S-3’s….is less of a concern. Payload/range is still a negative factor but with smaller, more precise, standoff munitions becoming prevalent anyway that is much reduced in importance as the weapon is more compact and puts back some of the lost range of the airframe. The tradeoff advantage for this drawback is massive though. In short you dont need a whole separate naval airforce.

The Americans and French fly CATOBAR obviously. Both have seperate distinct services equipped to operate fixed-wing airpower in the naval domain. The US can call on Marine Corps air to backfill decks of course, as they have done for years, but the French, much more on our scale, have to maintain the Aeronavale as a separate entity at a significant scale. This is stood up to keep all their maritime aircraft based and logistically supported and a multi-squadron pool of pilots available at any time their carrier is deployable. Its entirely a cost loading on the Marine Nationale as I understand it. Just as the USN naval air capability is the funding responsibility of the USN.

The RN Fleet Air Arm to stand up to Aeronavale scale, as it would have had to do if we had stayed the course with the CATOBAR shift from a few years ago, would require significant funding to basing, infrastructure, logistics and training to get maritime specialised airframes and deck-qualified crew pools established for deployment. The cost of that could not have been met from the real-world budget allocation, so, something would have had to be dropped or sold…..likely the 2nd carrier or a pushback on T26 or something else unpalatable.

What STOVL gives us, inherently with its ease of deck qualification, is the ability for RAF F-35B aircraft to become carrier deployable. Just as RAF Harrier GR3’s were able to deploy to Hermes in 1982. A ‘surge’ component for UK Carrier Strike can now come from the RAF meaning that the Fleet Air Arm contingent can stay as a smaller, specialist, establishment and costs can be shared between the two services. Essentially we get with 2 carriers arguably a more sustainable sortie rate generation over a longer on station period than the French do from their CVN/CATOBAR force and the RN dont have to pay for an Aeronavale equivalent Fleet Air Arm….meaning more money can go into ships, subs and salaries!.

Edit: Cap tipped to Swerve for accurately translating my post earlier and for distilling it down into a much more concise and sensible format!

lol all good, thought you knew better so i asked nicely 🙂

Cheers

What STOVL carrier are you referring too ?

Queen Elizabeth..
and i meant RN not RAN.. bad habit.

so do you guys think RAN’s choice for the STVOL carrier over the CTOL one was the right choice?

In the 70ies it was. Yes. It was much cheaper than a CATOBAR carrier of the size to handle the available aircrafts. The Brits ran out of money in the 70ies and 80ies. So it was the right choice.

Indeed, whilst the Australian variant of the San Carlos has retained the Ski-Jump the ship is not configured to support jets lacking the appropriate support systems and munitions stores. At best they could operate as a Lilli-pad for the F-35B.

What STOVL carrier are you referring too ?

so do you guys think RAN’s choice for the STVOL carrier over the CTOL one was the right choice?

is it easier to take off and land with an stovl plane than a catobar or stobar?
I had always assumed stovl (at least) were more prone to damaging the ship deck with its hot exhaust. As well as higher crash ratio on landing.

some maximum take-off/range concerns were there with stovl and stobar aircraft, but the russian guys seem confident the su-33 can take off with a very reasonable load and fuel.

Significantly easier, the most complex aspect is training the pilots in deck taxiing and handling skills. Take off and landing is a relatively minor issue, during operation corporate the RAF pilots that were called to operate Sea Harrier and GR3 off the carriers need a very small amount of training.

With modern training aids the F-35B is almost comically easy to operate off a carrier, even journalists have been able to do it first attempt in the simulator.

I think he’s saying that the early Harrier carriers were limited but successful, & proved the concept of STOVL enabling smaller & easier to support* carriers than cat & trap could provide. The minimum size has gone up, but it’s still a lot less than the minimum useful cat & trap ship. And there’s an inkling of something new to replace the bottom end of the Harrier carrier range.

*Much quicker & simpler pilot training, much simpler ships with less maintenance.

is it easier to take off and land with an stovl plane than a catobar or stobar?
I had always assumed stovl (at least) were more prone to damaging the ship deck with its hot exhaust. As well as higher crash ratio on landing.

some maximum take-off/range concerns were there with stovl and stobar aircraft, but the russian guys seem confident the su-33 can take off with a very reasonable load and fuel.

The answer to the question “why isn’t there a new Harrier?” is political, i.e. because nobody saw fit to build one. Not because a smaller STOVL platform is no longer useful, but because they couldn’t be bothered allocating the necessary resources. Same reason there are no medium bombers anymore.

Jonesy‘s was one of those posts that make one wish for a ‘like’ button. In its own way my post was intended as a reply/extension, to the point of why the minimum size has gone up, i.e. it’s not a technical evolution, but a political one.

?
It seems technical, by going from an Harrier, wich is roughly the size of an A-4 to an aircraft the size of a Tornado, Dave B, with the weight of a Super Hornet then the aircraft carriers also have to go (way) bigger.

Jonesy‘s was one of those posts that make one wish for a ‘like’ button. In its own way my post was intended as a reply/extension, to the point of why the minimum size has gone up, i.e. it’s not a technical evolution, but a political one.

I think he’s saying that the early Harrier carriers were limited but successful, & proved the concept of STOVL enabling smaller & easier to support* carriers than cat & trap could provide. The minimum size has gone up, but it’s still a lot less than the minimum useful cat & trap ship. And there’s an inkling of something new to replace the bottom end of the Harrier carrier range.

*Much quicker & simpler pilot training, much simpler ships with less maintenance.