EdLawIt wouldn’t be a great surprise to see the Spanish building another BPE or two to function as replacements for the PdA, given that the ships are very affordable. One would serve primarily as an LHD, one primarily as a carrier, and one to fill in for whichever one is unavailable. The only downside to the BPE as a carrier is its speed, which is not ideal, but at that price, is probably not a show-stopper…
EdLawThis figure of 9 JSFs keeps being brought up – it is not the true figure, and actually takes the argument to absurd lengths. The actual combat airwing would be 40-50 aircraft, so obsessing on the number of aircraft that would be carried for a peacetime cruise is ridiculous. The reality is that you do not need to actually keep 50 aircraft on board 24/7 for every single cruise – as soon as you deploy for any operation, you can deploy out to the carrier easily enough. All the carrier needs to carry is enough fighters to be able to defend itself pending reinforcements arriving. Keeping the aircraft at their home base allows the crews to keep training up until they are needed. This means that they are less of a drain on support assets, and is a lot cheaper (fuel on base costs a lot less than at sea, same with most things), and keeps the crews in the comfort of home longer.
As for the one Storm Shadow on the F-35B, I cannot remember off hand, but I’m pretty sure it was on the Beedall site, which is very credible. The story was that the loadout would be one Storm Shadow on one wing, with a drop tank on the other wing. This is probably for bringback purposes, so it is possible that this was only a ‘normal’ load, not the capability – i.e. you could carry two, but you would have to drop one of them if you didn’t expend it.
EdLawThe whole point of using the shelters on the deck is to protect aircraft on the deck – you cannot simply increase the size of the hangar! The idea is to ensure that the aircraft that are on deck are protected from the worst of the weather, not to hermetically seal them. As for the structural strength of the shelters, that is not as hard as it sounds, since these are purpose designed semi-rigid shelters, not modified army tents!
As for the aircraft figures, those numbers are simply not accurate. The Cavour should be able to carry around 20 aircraft without too many problems, so that figure is probably true. The CdG is capable of operating around 30-35 aircraft, the 24 figure is about the optimum number of Rafales for safe operations in peacetime, to which you then add Hawkeyes and helicopters. As for the CVF, its airwing can be 40-50 aircraft easily, it is simply that there is no perceived need for the carriers to carry as many for peacetime ops. This also depends on whether the UK goes for a carrier version of its planned UCAVs – if they are affordable, then they should be able to embark some of them on the carriers alongside the JSFs.
In summary, your figures should be more like:
Cavour – 15-20
CdG – 30-35
CVF – 40-55
Nimitz – 60-80 (as with all of the above, any number beyond this reduces safety margins, with aircraft having to be packed very tightly etc…)
EdLawOne interesting thing will be the deployment of climate controlled mini-hangars for the decks. The B-2s needed a climate controlled structure for maintenance purposes, and they did it, so I doubt doing one for the F-35s would be too hard. Even if you store them on deck, you could then keep them protected from the worst of the weather – you may not have room to do maintenance (without the tent being too large), but you can just fix them up in the hangar.
As for aircraft numbers, the hangar can hold 24 F-35s, and in a CTOL configuration should be able to carry another 24 on the bow parking area (assuming waist cats are fitted). Add to this another 4 Hawkeyes and 4 Merlins, which can park next to the hangars, and you get a likely wartime loading of 48+8, i.e 56 aircraft total. For peacetime, simply reduce this to 24+8, i.e. 32 aircraft total. The other change will be the possible acquisition of UCAVs, which could replace F-35s on a more than one-for-one basis.
As for the question of whether CTOL is worthwhile in the days of Storm Shadow type standoff missiles, this ignores the fact that the F-35B in STOVL mode will only ever carry one missile (plus a fuel tank on the other wing). In contrast, the F-35C should be capable of carrying two Storm Shadows. Also, the real change will be the deployment of weapons like the SDB, which will be able to be carried in large numbers by each aircraft – somewhere between a dozen and two dozen!
EdLawThe problem with the assertion that the F135 engine is ‘further ahead’ is flawed by the fact that it was always intended to be the first engine ready. It is the engine to be used in the development program – the F-136 was always intended to be a later option.
Also, any cancellation of the F-136 would endanger UK involvement in the project. Given that a lot of countries are beginning to have second thoughts about the project, deliberately aggravating your only Tier 1 customer is not a good idea!
EdLawThe trouble is that if the US did sell Finland the missiles, Russia would see it as provocative, and probably start putting the screws on Finland! There are of course alternatives, which would probably be more politically acceptable, such as the Storm Shadow or KEPD-350. The real question may be where all of this is going – are we heading back into the dark days of the ’80s, with IRBMs being seen as political cards? A lot of us remember those days, and are none too keen to revisit them (as good as the music was :diablo: )!
EdLawWhile I agree that manpads are a real threat to aircraft flying within their range, I do not concede that this makes turboprops too vulnerable. They do not have to be more vulnerable than attack helicopters, which fly in the same flight regime. They should be capable of being fitted with defensive systems, but fundamentally any aircraft flying at low altitude and low speed will be vulnerable.
Probably the most cost effective option is to buy ALXs or PC-9s, and some cheap jets, possibly L-159s or similar. Going for a batch of very expensive fighters that will not be affordable makes little sense – even F-5s were too expensive, so Gripens or F-16s are not great choices!
EdLawFrankly, the best bet might be to try to get the license to build new OV-10s. They would probably be reasonably cheap, and they already have a lot of experience with them. They carry an excellent warload, and are cheap to operate. Even better, some of them could be completed to OV-10D NOGS standard, with the turreted 20mm…
EdLawCertainly for the moment, the best bet would be cheap counter insurgency types, basically armed trainers. The Embraer ALX would be a good option, and would provide a lot of capability, for not a great cost. Same story with buying helicopters – the Mi-17 would be an excellent candidate, with a low unit cost, and a high capability.
As for heavy weapons, the best thing would be to provide a few thousand cheap armoured vehicles (e.g. the Cougar ILAV), and possibly some mortars, not much more is needed for counter insurgency. Fighter jets would be an unnecessary drain on the budget – it would actually be a better move (perhaps politically too) to invite the neighbouring states, such as Jordan and Saudi, to provide air defence.
EdLawIs there any reason being given why the French PA2 will have stabilisers, and the UK’s CVFs will not? I can just about understand the French ones having the nuclear weapons storage not fitted to the UK ones, though it would make sense for the UK to make provision for the possibility (given that the carriers are supposed to be in service for 50 years, so the possibility of bringing back an air launched deterrent might be re-examined).
As for the oil and gas, the problem is that the oil and gas is actually in what would be Scottish territorial waters, so the Scottish claim is legitimate. The reality is that the North Sea no longer has great reserves left, so it would not be a great asset overall. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a federal-style system, with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all having state legislatures, and an overall national/federal legislature. The queen would still be the overall head of state, and you would either have a PM as now, or possibly a ‘premier’ (i.e. effectively a president, separate from the legislature, but not actually head of state). Basically, each ‘state’ would have its own policies, but national and international issues would remain under national control (with a national armed forces etc…).
EdLawIf Chavez came out in support of an Argentine invasion, it would almost absolutely ensure the US intervening on Britain’s behalf. If the UK were alone, then it would probably be a tough fight (the UK would probably still win, but it would be a close run thing), but if the US is involved, it becomes quite painful for Argentina. Chavez’s support would be the kiss of death to any Argentine ambitions…
EdLawNot to criticise the Reaper, but 16 SDBs is not realistic within a 3000lb limit – the four bomb carriage weighs approx 1500lbs, so 16 SDBs on their racks would weigh in at close to 6000lbs!
I do, however, really like the Reaper, and think it has a lot of potential.
EdLawA very fitting tribute to a good man!
EdLawOne major problem is that there is no alternative for the electorate – the conservative party are not going to be any different. Basically, it is a choice between one bad lot and another, and the Navy seems to be destined to become little more than a glorified coast guard (though without the numbers and esprit de corps of the USCG).
EdLawWhile it may be popular to place blame on BAE, I don’t think it’s really very fair – the reality is that they are victims of the government’s meddling. On most of the overdue and overbudget projects, the government has ordered changes, or moved the goalposts, making delivery to the original budget impossible. The sad reality is that you can only win MoD contracts by bidding well below cost, then raising costs, since a properly costed bid would always lose. BAE have now grown well beyond the UK market, so losing the MoD would probably border on welcome news, given how much bad press they receive from them!
Sign In
