Rebuilding UK Carrier Strike after a decade's gap

Surely the solution is obvious and keeps all defence experts happy

F35a dies:
USAF sells its ‘old’ Raptors to Japan and Australia
Fortune spent re-opening Raptor prouction line and USAF gets original 700+ number of Raptors all with JSF electronics instead

USArmy gets the CAS mission but USAF gets a couple of squadrons of B1Rs to drop JDAMs from altitude

F35b and F35c are safe as they are the most expensive variants

and whilst i don’t believe for a minute the C will die, if we went for the Rafale option then we could buy into the future stealthy version they want to develop…

But that’s not happening so we don’t need to think about it.

…..

Bills done an article now going into the details of the USN possibility of cancelling one of the F-35 variants as a cost cutting exercise. However whilst that would probably fall under the F-35 thread the quote from a UK source on possible F-35C cancelation by the USN was rather interesting !:-

Interesting, i would have assumed the F-18E/F would have been the first choice as back-up !!!!!!! – Naval Typhoon again as a full CATOBAR aircraft or would the RN end up with Rafale B to keep our neighbours happy ?

Acquiring the Rafale for the RN would tie in with the proposed carrier-sharing – RN aircraft able to be based on CdeG and MN planes basing on QEII or PoW? Maybe the French are prepared to offer some sort of workshare deal on the Rafale?

Probably posturing to try to persuade the US to cancel B not C. If F35C goes then I very much doubt that any decision has been made in the UK as to what they would buy. Could be all those you mentioned, or even revert to F35B.

p.s. If any government officials are reading this, then it is uninformed garbage and you really shouldn’t cancel the F35C because you would definitely lose your biggest international partner.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/08/29/AW_08_29_2011_p24-363094.xml&headline=New%20Threat%20To%20F-35%20Joint%20Strike%20Fighter&next=0

Bills done an article now going into the details of the USN possibility of cancelling one of the F-35 variants as a cost cutting exercise. However whilst that would probably fall under the F-35 thread the quote from a UK source on possible F-35C cancelation by the USN was rather interesting !:-

The largest international JSF partner, the U.K., changed its plans in October 2010, switching from the B to the C model. If the F-35C were to be canceled, the U.K. would withdraw from the program and “look for a European solution” to its requirement for a carrier fighter, a senior U.K. official said in Washington earlier this month. Italy is the only international partner that plans to operate the F-35B.

Interesting, i would have assumed the F-18E/F would have been the first choice as back-up !!!!!!! – Naval Typhoon again as a full CATOBAR aircraft or would the RN end up with Rafale B to keep our neighbours happy ?

I’ve seen similar photos of other aircraft during high-stress/high-G maneuvering conditions.

Most aircraft flex far further and more often than most people realize, and in places most would think unlikely.

But that does illustrate how a carrier aircraft can run out of authorized cat/trap cycles well before running out of airframe flight hours, and why carrier aircraft need stronger airframes than land-based aircraft… the whole airframe, not just the landing gear and the structure where it mounts to the aircraft.

Remember, that E-2 is landing at about twice the sink-rate it would on land… the forces experienced are proportionately greater.

is theat rippling normal on a E2? that looks well iffy! but good photo.:eek:

As for an E2C purchase by taking on ex USN airframes as they introduce E2D, that is an interesting concept. I had already suggested that E2 should be purchased to operate alongside the French. This idea makes it more solid in my mind:

As long as Grumman could bring them up to the standard as the ones in French and somehow zero time their trap cycles it could be cost effective. As I have said before the French have wanted an extra Hawkeye for quite a while.

The French E-2Cs, like many of the USN’s E-2Cs, have been upgraded to the Hawkeye 2000 standard. Just be sure to get get those and not the non-upgraded ones. The question of airframe hours is a whole other matter…

Description DN-SD-07-00030.jpg
English: Ripples appear along the fuselage of a US Navy (USN) E-2C Hawkeye aircraft assigned to the “Seahawks” of Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 126 (VAW-126), due to the tremendous amount of torque and pressure exerted on the aircraft while landing on the flight deck of the USN Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier, USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75). The TRUMAN and embarked Carrier Air Wing 3 (CVW-3) are currently underway in the Persian Gulf providing close air support and conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. (Released to Public)

DoD photo by: PHAN KRISTOPHER WILSON, USN Date Shot: 11 Jan 2005

Larger image here

I have pondered if the USN ever considered a tanker variant E2 but I presume it would never of got far considering they already had types performing that task.

As for an E2C purchase by taking on ex USN airframes as they introduce E2D, that is an interesting concept. I had already suggested that E2 should be purchased to operate alongside the French. This idea makes it more solid in my mind:

As long as Grumman could bring them up to the standard as the ones in French and somehow zero time their trap cycles it could be cost effective. As I have said before the French have wanted an extra Hawkeye for quite a while. If we purchase three airframes that would be attractive to the French. Set up a naval air squadron to keep the books square but operate and maintain them from Toulon, rotating the aircraft between the CdG and QE class carrier during peace time with mixed crews. I don’t see it being a major burden for a NAS to operate out of Toulon and in the event of an emergency the UK owned ready airframes and personnel are deployed to the ready carrier. In the future the FAA and Aeronavale could share the costs of upgrades by the economies of scale. As for general maintenance we save the cost of setting up a full logistics structure in the UK and work some agreement with Grumman over parts supply.

could the hawkeyes still be used as a aew platform as well as a tanker? ,thats sounds like a very logical idea, two for the price of one,think youve hit the nail on the head,presumably spares would be no problem.

Or the S-3s, if there are any available,

I’m pretty sure there are quite a few available which have a lot of airframe hours left, along with good stocks of spares, & enough stored airframes to cannibalise for more spares as needed. IIRC Brazil & a couple of other countries have been offered some free – though that was tied to a contract for refurbishment & support which the potential recipients thought made them expensive.

The problem, as I see it, is twofold. Firstly, you’d have an orphan type. You’d need to hoover ( 😉 ) up all the airframes & spares available to minimise the risk of having to ground ’em all for lack of parts, or have to have parts made new at mind-boggling prices. You’d then get a lot of aircraft which would need to be maintained by juggling your stocks of unused & part-used parts, with lots of parting-out of old airframes.

Secondly, they’d probably need a thorough refurbishment before putting back into service, & the replacement of quite a lot of obsolete equipment.

It could be worth it for some navy, but I’m not sure that the RN is the one. We have the option of taking over retiring E-2Cs & pooling them with the French, which I think would be a better idea. A pity, because I like the S-3, & it seems a shame to see good aircraft with a lot of hours left on the clock rusting away.

do you think it requires a separate airframe for each task? I would have thought the UCAVAEW side of things would be separate and more complex from the COD/Refuelling side of things perhaps?

To my mind that seems a relatively simple task for an automaton….

can we not look to bespoke UAV types for this? After All there is at least 10 years before they will be needed in any great numbers.

Less support and personnel and general footprint i would have thought. Doesn’t that seen cleaner than dragging ageing airframes into the RN with all the high support costs that entails?

It may be one of the options under consideration, but considering the timeframe its taking just to get homegrown UCAVs suitable for RAF strike use it will be sometime before they can transpose those lessons into a sea going carrier capable UCAV. Even the BAE Taransis is just a concept demonstrator and the next step after that is a joint effort with Dassault, the USN are only just getting to grips with testing the X-47B from a Carrier.

Therefore its likely to take some time to get a UCAV we can trust to operate off the carrier to provide tanker and/or AEW functions that are required.

I suspect they will look at Hawkeye’s in a joint unit with the French in the 2015-2025 period with the hope of a UCAV joint replacement circa 2030.

It is a pity the S-3 is going out of service, as it could have acted as a tanker, COD and possibly the basis for an AEW aircraft using the Cerberus radar but as its being withdrawn from the USN the maintenace would be prohibitively expensive. 🙁

That’s something I always wondered about: how come the carriers will last for 50 years, when the normal lifespan of a warship is just 30 years? Are the carriers being built to higher standards? Or better quality steel?

In effect yes, they have learnt alot about the science of ship building, the design and the materials used. The USN carriers are built to the same standards so they will be using the lessons learnt from them.

I think thats why the bought all the steel in one go for both ships to ensure it was to a specific standard.

can we not look to bespoke UAV types for this? After All there is at least 10 years before they will be needed in any great numbers.

Less support and personnel and general footprint i would have thought. Doesn’t that seen cleaner than dragging ageing airframes into the RN with all the high support costs that entails?

….. I suppose for a carrier that will be in service for 50 years (as claimed0 then even if we don’t get it right first time, we will at least have the chance to get it round for subsequent cycles

That’s something I always wondered about: how come the carriers will last for 50 years, when the normal lifespan of a warship is just 30 years? Are the carriers being built to higher standards? Or better quality steel?

CATOBAR does open up a lot of possibilities and I hope that the decisions on AAR, AEW and COD will be revisited. What is more I hope they are re-visited as a group, because whilst introducing a new aircraft type for (say) AAR may not be economic, when you consider it across all three it may be.

However presumably this too will have to wait for 2015.

I suppose for a carrier that will be in service for 50 years (as claimed0 then even if we don’t get it right first time, we will at least have the chance to get it round for subsequent cycles

Or the S-3s, if there are any available,

Which turns my mind to those Traders that the Brazilians are having converted to tanker configuration by Marsh aviation. Might well be a far cheaper option with the added benefit of gaining a moderate COD type.

Unfortunately despite heavy searching I just can’t find a website for Marsh aviation so getting a project update is near impossible.

I would have thought so, but then I am continually amazed by the costs involved in developing the F-35. For what it’s worth, our old friend Sharkey Ward says this on his website:

“It is understood that the MoD has asked the manufacturer whether a buddy-buddy tanking capability can be fitted to some aircraft specifically for the use of the Queen Elizabeth class air group. This would entail major design modifications and development work and would most likely negate the stealth qualities of the aircraft so modified. Further, the cost of such a “one-off” venture is likely to be extortionate. A figure of US$1.6 billion was mooted in Whitehall for the development costs alone and, unquestionably, the cost of each modified aircraft would be substantially more than that of the basic F-35C (now estimated to be more than US$150 million per unit).”

Even if turns out to be just half that, it’s still a pretty substantial additional cost.