Knowing what we know now, what would you do different.

Well the MBDA Meteor issue was due to the fins being to large for internal carriage. Apparenty MBDA plan to remedy that with a clipped fin variant, external carriage presented no issue.

As for ASRAAM that is a bit more bemusing, it’s designed to be compatible with any aircraft wired for Sidewinder. I wonder if it’s more to do with UK gov not wanting to pick up integration costs.

Yes i’d heard that about the Meteor, it could only fit in the A2G slots, not the A2A.

That was what was confusing me about ASRAAM, my thought was just that it hadn’t been integrated. The Aussies will need it integrated eventually as well wont they?

Well the MBDA Meteor issue was due to the fins being to large for internal carriage. Apparenty MBDA plan to remedy that with a clipped fin variant, external carriage presented no issue.

As for ASRAAM that is a bit more bemusing, it’s designed to be compatible with any aircraft wired for Sidewinder. I wonder if it’s more to do with UK gov not wanting to pick up integration costs.

Can anyone provide some more information on an aspect of this report:

http://bfbs.com/news/uk/new-f35-c-fighters-future-doubt-54264.html

First mention I’ve seen of the F35C not being able to use ASRAAM missiles. I knew there was a problem with Meteor on F35B but I haven’t seen this at all.

Why is it impossible to use both catapult & ramp ?
Does anyone have a drawing how the catapult works ?

In naval warfare? As in: Waiting a little and sending out the Bismarck and the Tirpitz together? 😉 And sending the measles to Lutjens to keep him off the ship …

What I’d definetly do differently today is the whole setup of the USMC amphib assault concept. Favouring dash speed and 3D action over long range approach capability and water-born assault; and some H-60 version as standard helicopter. Etc etc. I also would not pre-pos, but rather build more fast sealifters that can cover the expected distance in a shorter time.

When it comes to ships, it’s certainly more range. Like at least +50%. That’s actual one of the good characteristics of the Darings, as they have a lot of range.

And I’d never retired the CGNs so early. A CVN without an escort that can keep up under almost all conditions is severly limited I think. I’d also put much more close-in self defence capability on CVNs.

Ok, gotta run now …

Malta Class Carriers

John,

Thankyou for your views, and lots to chew over from your post.

Your emphasis on the huge costs for the re-fits and re-builds for the various carriers, possibly put off both the Labour and the Conservative Govt’s financing future carrier projects, such as CVA 01 (1967),—-no money.

I must acknowledge you are probably right in your last sentence on the Malta class, too large for the task East of Suez, and policy at the time.

Gerry R

The Normans

Simples

By dint of Black Magic UK and France actually go for genuine common equipment (chosen on merit) and by doing so create a default standard for European NATO (and Canada possibly).

Thus as a minimum UK and France have two bidders for each system (one French one UK) and a bidder can afford to lose one contract as there will be another to win. Rather than having to back substandard designs to support industry or rationalise and end up with only one supplier

There are even some more successful collaborations

i.e.
Heavyweight Torpedo – Spearfish
ICBM – M1 to M2 to M45 (with Chevaline?)
Area SAM – Sea Dart
AAMs – Active Skyflash and Magic
SSN – T-boats
SSK – Agosta
ASM/SSM – Exocet
Strike CV – Clemenceau class (Clemenceau, Foch, Ark Royal, Eagle)
Escort CV – Invincible class (Invincible, Illustrious, Jean D’Arc, Richelieu)
Strike airframe – AFVG
Strategic bomber – Discorde (Concorde with weapons)

Unsure:
SSBN – ?
Point SAM – seawolf or Crotale Navale?
NGS – Mk8 or C/L 100mm?
ASW – Ikara or Malafon?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and needless to say, we are so much wiser because of it.

Rather than the re-construction of HMS Victorious 1950-58, the immediate post war project to build at least 2 Malta class carriers, 46,000 tons displacement plus a 900ft plus flight deck, should have been re-surrected in the 50s with all the new (British) innovations, such as angled deck, mirror sight, steam catapult etc, for completion by the time the WW2 Formidable class carriers were due for retirement in the mid to late 1950s. The larger Malta class would have been capable of operating an array of modern and large attack aircraft with ease, not forgetting other types, on a par with the big US super carriers.

Gerry R

Gerry:

I’d advance another theory.

This would have been for the Royal Navy to have built Eagle and Ark Royal, together with Albion, Bulwark, Centaur and Hermes, with Hermes built to the same standards as her half-sisters, and no modernisation of Victorious. If this had happened, the Navy would have had six pretty modern carriers by the mid 50s, dispensing with the wartime armoured carriers, which were so expensive to modernise that it was only attempted for Victorious.

Apart from updating them with steam catapults and angled decks, I would not have changed these ships significantly. The modernisation of Eagle took five years, and was hugely expensive, and the modernisation of Ark Royal was cheaper, but still took three years. The LPH role given to Albion and Bulwark could have been done by ships of the Colossus and Glory classes instead, there were several spare hulls which could have been used.

Imagine that huge amounts had not been spent on Victorious, Hermes, Eagle and Ark Royal. In the mid 60s we would still have had six carriers, which is as many destroyers as we have now! They would not have been able to operate the Phantom, true, but would nonetheless have been a major naval force. Would it have been easier to protect the programme to build a new generation of carriers in the late 60s and early 70s if huge amounts had not been spent on rebuilds of wartime designed ships? We’ll never know of course, but in reality, is there anything that the expensively updated ships did which could not have been done by the more basic carriers? Don’t forget, at this time the Royal Navy still had a major worldwide role, and was tasked with keeping two carriers east of Suez at all times. Two large Malta type ships would have represented too great a concentration of power for the job the Navy had at the time, which was essentially keeping the peace east of Suez, whilst RAF Bomber Command had the job of nuclear deterrence of the Soviet Union.

There was never any chance that the UK could afford 3 small carriers. Capital costs for a smaller carrier were not much less than the carrier we have produced, and capabiliuty would have been significantly reduced.

And then the manning of each of the smaller carriers alone would have been close to that of the larger one, which means that through life the 3 smaller carrier option would have cost far more.

The 65000 tonne design was not chosen by accident. Indeed the MoD pushed and pushed for smaller carriers (albeit still 2), but both competing consortia made the case very strongly that the size chosen was the optimum give or take a few thousand tonnes.

When they come into service I think it would be hard to argue that the RN will not once again be the 2nd most powerful navy in the world, when you look at the capability as a whole (carriers, amphibs, T45s, Frigates, SSNs & SSBNs)

Knowing what we know now, JSF should have been a twin engine aircraft with two EPE engines and a separate advanced STOVL aircraft on the lines of Yak-141 should have been built for the USMC.

I can’t imagine either carrier being sold to the French. They’ve not shown any interest in buying one, or even any sign that they’ve devoted a moment to thinking about the possibility. They’ll either go without or build their own.

We’re buying catapults, but so far only one ship set, as far as anyone knows. What happens to the other ship is still up in the air, but it seems highly unlikely that it will be built with a ramp.

Malta class carriers, rather than Victorious re-build.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and needless to say, we are so much wiser because of it.

Rather than the re-construction of HMS Victorious 1950-58, the immediate post war project to build at least 2 Malta class carriers, 46,000 tons displacement plus a 900ft plus flight deck, should have been re-surrected in the 50s with all the new (British) innovations, such as angled deck, mirror sight, steam catapult etc, for completion by the time the WW2 Formidable class carriers were due for retirement in the mid to late 1950s. The larger Malta class would have been capable of operating an array of modern and large attack aircraft with ease, not forgetting other types, on a par with the big US super carriers.

The Invincible class carriers of the 1980s, although serving a purpose were too small and were political ships, at one time they were called ‘Through Deck Cruisers’ rather than Carriers so as not to alert the then anti-Carrier Labour Government of the time during their construction.

Up to date on the present situation, I agree with F/A-18RN that 3 smaller carriers would have been a better option than the two large ones that are at this time under construction, there is still a tremendous amount of confusion still on these two ships as they slowly become reality. I am assuming that the second ship will be sold to the French to pay for the construction cost of HMS Queen Elizabeth? and the question whether this first ship will be completed with or without catapults, and or a ramp remains a grey area, unless someone in the know can clarify this?.

The UK has certainly slipped down the league of seaborne air power, other lesser navies are going in the other direction, for example, the Spanish and Italian navies as well as the French in the recent Libyan conflict,………..where were OUR fixed wing Carriers!?.:mad:

Gerry R

If I can take this from when I first became intersted in defence matters (mid 1980s) then it would be building 1 or preferably 2 LHD style ships rather than replacing the Falklands frigate losses. They would have been useful as sea control ships too in view of the Cold War requirements at the time.

Otherwise it would have been for the Options for Change review to have come to the same conclusions as the 1998 SDR which would have allowed for what became CVF to have at least a 5 year head start.

Taking the 2010 SDSR as a starting point, I would have placed the amphibious ships into extended readiness with a mixed regular and reserve crew for training and emergency purposes. The aim would be to extend their service life and save funds to keep a small Harrier detachment and allowing Illustrious to sail as a small LHA.

As of today and assuming purchasing F-18s isn’t realistic, it would be to ensure the Type 45s had their “fitted for but not with” systems added including LACM and BMD.

Out of interest, would anyone have altered or not progressed with Typhoon and would purchasing AV-8B as a Sea Harrier FRS1/Harrier GR3 replacement had been practical or even beneficial?

to my mind it would be obviously to do with making the QE class CATOBAR too.

I have a question about the ASTOVL designs being suggested as alternatives. These are not LO/Signature Managed/stealthy designs are they?
Doesn’t that put the forces at a disadvantage in the coming decades?

admittedly 3x cavours would cost more to run

This is the killer. Despite what you might think from media portrayal, it is through life costs that matter. One of the main reasons the MOD got into the financial trouble it did was because it was purchasing equipment without any though for the cost of running it through life.

The only way we can afford QEC is because it is (relatively) cheap to run – e.g. smaller crew than CDG or Invincible, fuel costs comparable or less than invincible.

As for me:
Design Astute to use vertical TLAM rather the torpedo tubes

Go with CATOBAR QEC from the start (easy with hindsight of technology maturation) and thus buy a FW AEW from the start. No need for STOVL ramp because the gains from interoperability of aircraft with other than US and France are neglible.

For a start, I would never have begun the Nimrod MRA4 programme. Trying to rebuild 40 year old airframes was always going to be poor value compared to simply using new build aircraft, whether they were Orions, P8s, or something based on an Airbus. Anything would have been better.

Going back further, after the success of naval aviation in 1982, the Royal Navy had effectively saved Mrs Thatcher’s neck, and should have made the most of it. Good though the Sea Harrier was, STOVL aircraft can never have the ability of CTOL. The three Invincible class and the SHARs were obviously going to remain in service until the early 2000s, but the plan should have been put in place to replace them with CTOL carriers operating Sea Typhoons. The Typhoon programme should have been navalised from the start, as the French wanted. This would have secured the future of the Fleet Air Arm, and by today we would have two carriers in service with a full complement of Sea Typhoons.

One thing I would never have done is fallen for Joint Force Harrier. This meant that the Navy effectively gave up control of the fixed wing FAA, merging it with the RAF’s Harrier force. The upshot was that first the Sea Harrier and then the Harrier was deleted at the behest of the RAF. How the Navy ever fell for that one is beyond me. If they expected the RAF to treat the FAA with any level of fairness or decency then their naivety was simply staggering.

indeed, the RN should’ve never retired the Ark Royale, and the planned sister ship, Burger Royale. It would’ve pounded the Argentinian forces much faster into submission and the Brits should’ve not only re taken the Falklands, but to take over Argentine’s claims to the Antarctic and occupy the province of Tiera Del Fuego. That would’ve made them stop yapping about the Falklands.

THe Canadian Navy should have never bought the Upholders.

indeed, should’ve not bought an SSK that was originally designed as a nuclear powered sub. Should’ve gone German and sometimes French like most sub purchasers :diablo:

THe Canadian Navy should have never bought the Upholders.

Swerve:

Fair play, I never thought anyone would ever speak up for the Nimrod MRA4 programme. I do apologise for getting the age of the airframes slightly wrong. Is there anything else about this programme which you would like to commend to me?

About the programme? No. It was a disaster from start to finish. The idea was fundamentally flawed, & the execution was appallingly bad.

We could have got some great aircraft from it despite the flawed conception, but once having started badly, BAe was determined to carry on in the same vein.

There was nothing wrong in principle with refurbishing the old airframes, though. There have been many successful programmes to extend the lives of & modernise old MPAs & the like (see what Airbus Military has done to Spanish & Brazilian P-3s, for example). The rot set in when instead of being satisfied with modernisation & life-extension, they decided to rebuild them with new engines, which because of the design needed a new wing, & to fit that needed a large part of the fuselage replaced. In the end, everything was new except the fuselage pressure cell & empennage, which was well under half the airframe, & a few percent of the value of the whole aircraft.

It was a very expensive way to build a new aircraft loosely modelled on an old one, disguised as an upgrade.

I think I posted this some time ago on another thread so apologies, but if I’d been responsible for reorganising the Royal Navy after 1945 I would have scrapped all the Battleships including HMS Vanguard straight away, none of this training ship or ‘Flagship of the Home Fleet’ nonsense, the then incomplete cruisers Lion, Tiger and Blake, all eight Hermes class and three Audacious class Carriers and abandoned any plans to modernise the Illustrious and Implacable class Carriers either. Instead I would have proceeded with the construction of the four Malta class Carriers, to be completed to a new design within the confines of their hulls by the late 1950s.
This revised design would have seen them emerge as giant versions of HMS Victorious post 1958 with a pair of steam catapults, JBDs, eight-and-a-half degree angled decks, Type 984 radars etc. Until the first of these was ready those Colossus and Majestic class Light Carriers not sold abroad could have carried on in the interim and then two or three could be converted into Commando Carriers.