EdLawA great pity – I guess part of the problem was the talk of a $40m F-35B, which many saw as an opportunity for smaller nations to get a carrier – but now that it is heading for the $100m+ mark, it is not quite such a great option. The trouble is that CTOL carriers need to be 35,000tons plus, and capable of sustaining 25 knots, whereas STOVL only needs around 20,000tons for F-35B ops, and can be diesel powered (i.e. cheap).
EdLawNot to confuse matters too much, but it would be interesting to see how such a vessel would compare with the Spanish BSAC-200/220 designs, which were discussed in an earlier thread. They were to be around 25,000tons, and CTOL configuration – though quite what you could operate off them would be interesting to know (in the ’80s, the A-4s were reasonably recent, but the Spanish proposals were in the ’90s, and there was probably nothing on offer by then, A-4s being ~15 years out of production).
EdLawAren`t all wars pointless?
I suspect that the guys who fought WW2 would probably be upset to hear you say that!
EdLawScooter: I am not so sure about that, remember, the F-35B is only supposed to be STOVL, the Harrier was supposed to be V/STOL, but the range and warload was just about enough to allow takeoff and landing, leaving very little fuel left for flying anywhere useful. I suspect the F-35B will probably struggle to carry out a VTOL – very heavy, but also the fact that the deck would probably melt! I seem to remember reading that there were major problems during the X-35 testing, with the ground beginning to melt (I think they ended up having to paint the ground underneath in a special coating, which was pink if I remember correctly).
Either way, the best bet seems to be to do the following:
– Build two new LHDs, as big and cheap as possible
– Improve the helicopter facilities on the LPDs and LSDs, to allow the helos to be displaced
– Make sure that no elected officials realise what you have just bought! :diablo:
EdLawMy statement is in reference to the comments by Vortex, which were extremely condescending, and I stand by my statement.
EdLawThe 30K is the biggest version I know of, though I suspect the whole design could simply be scaled up to 35,000 if necessary. Either way, a ship that big would certainly be impressive. All that is needed now is to knock out the Chancellor, so you can get the funding past him…
EdLawI would aim for the F-35B force to be ‘joint’ though, for direct support of 16AAB (RAF aircraft) and 3Cdo (RN aircraft) – they would be the ‘forward’ element, operating from either makeshift bases or carriers/amphibs. I would still aim for a full 12 aircraft squadron though, since it gives a bit more flexibility – you can keep four available around the clock with 12, but with 6, you struggle to keep 2 available.
The next question is where you put the helicopters you have displaced, lets assume that the RM helicopter force ends up with an attached airgroup of 16 Merlins and 8 Apaches, as they currently want. That is 24 helicopters, possibly with a few UAVs in supplement. If you assume that the LHD is limited to carrying either all 24 helicopters or 12 F-35Bs and 12 helos, then you need to accomodate the 12 other helos elsewhere. Luckily, the Bay class, though not fitted with a hangar, could probably either have one installed, or at least have a shelter erected. If you can accomodate the remaining aircraft on the LPDs and LSDs, then the amphib battle group has the potential to operate as a mini-carrier.
The problem is to slowly add the requirements – if you start demanding Ocean be replaced by a pair of LHDs of 30,000tons, and mention that they can carry JSFs, then that is the CVF project canned. If you buy the CVFs, and then say that the combo of Ark Royal and Ocean need replaced (Ark is scheduled to be kept on for a while apparently), then you might get them to allow the LHDs. It is all a matter of persuading the government to allow the military the kit that we armchair generals want them to have… :diablo:
EdLawJust a quick question (yes, off topic, but hey) – since Saab/Sweden have been courting the Norwegians, I was wondering if there has been any word of a newer version of the Ericsson Erieye, updated with newer technology. As it stands, the Erieye is now ~10 years old, and aside from better processors, I have not seen any real evidence of any improvements. It might make the current Gripen-N (see other thread) offer more attractive – Norway could probably get 60 Gripen, 60 UCAVs and a few Erieye aircraft for the same price as the JSFs…
EdLawSwerve: Ocean is not equipped, but there is talk of replacing her in a few years, once funding for the CVFs has gone through. There was talk in some circles of going for a design like the Schelde LHD30000, which is, as the name suggests, an LHD of around 30,000 tons, built to commercial standards. The idea being that they would be a reasonable price, for some very capable ships – they would be capable, theoretically, of carrying a decent airwing of helicopters or JSFs (the latter being an unspoken requirement, since they cannot put the CVF project at risk by allowing the ship to be seen as a carrier). They would be a reasonable cost, mechanically quite simple – they are basically the carrier equivalent of the Bay class landing ships (cheap, large ships).
EdLawOf course I know that Reagan is dead (I did use ‘was’ in reference to him!), and that is my point, he is easier to admire now. The CVN-77 was entering service before Reagan was dead, but Reagan had been out of the political scene for a long time, due mainly to Alzheimers, which actually helped to avoid some of the trickier questions over his past policies (like the famous statements about the aids crisis in the ’80s). I did not miss either point.
As for the Foch, the Brazilians decided that they wanted to bring back carrier aviation, and since the Minas Gerais was barely sea-worthy, they had few choices. They managed to buy a batch of A-4 Skyhawks from Kuwait, and needed a carrier. Since they did not have the money to buy a new carrier – none of the ex-US carriers were well suited, for a number of good reasons. With the French retiring Foch and Clemenceau, the opportunity to buy a medium sized carrier for a low price appeared. The Foch was, reportedly, in reasonably good condition, and needed little work to be brought into service.
The American carriers are too manpower intensive for their worth – they use huge crews (c.4500-5000 for the JFK, versus c.1800 for the Foch, though it would be lower in foreign service due to a smaller airwing, though still towards double the crew number). The fact is that nobody that wants carriers and can afford them (France and the UK mainly) would want a 40 year old vessel, and the nations that want carriers but cannot afford them (Brazil was an example, and as shown by the current operational tempo of the Sao Paulo, they cannot afford to genuinely operate carriers, as is Argentina, as discussed in a different thread) would not be foolish enough to buy the JFK.
The fact remains, there are no customers for the JFK, because nobody who can afford to own carriers would want a 40 year old carrier, especially one in poor material condition. It is not because it is too large, it is because it would not make any sense – the CVF will not be much smaller, but will have much lower running costs.
I would ask that you check your condescending attitude at the door, it is not welcomed!
EdLawScooter: that would be my hope in the long term, but you need to buy the F-35C first, so the CVFs are completed as CTOL. Once the aircraft have been purchased, you then identify a need for close support aircraft, and buy some extra -B versions, to operate, as you say, from Ocean or its replacement(s). Basically, I would aim for ~4 Sqns of F-35Cs for the RN, ~4 Sqns of F-35Cs for the RAF, ~4 Sqns of F-35Bs for a Joint Force Harrier replacement (the CAS unit). The problem is that proposing a mixed purchase at the moment would be pushing luck too far – the project is still somewhat vulnerable, so any ambitious proposals would risk total cancellation. In the long run, add a few squadrons of UCAVs, and you end up with a very good air wing (c.24 F-35Cs and 24 UCAVs on CVFs, and 12 F-35Bs on Ocean’s replacements).
EdLawI am hoping that they will still switch to CTOL though, both as an insurance policy against future problems, and because it simply means a better carrier!
EdLawVortex: I am under no illusions about Kennedy, but you are forgetting the number one lesson – it is easier to admire a dead president than a living one! The fact is that Kennedy was a deeply flawed individual, and in some ways, his death was the best thing that could happen for his reputation. My point was that he is admired now, and the idea of having a Reagan and GHWB would be quite difficult politically – Reagan had his following, but again, he was a deeply flawed individual, with all the Iran-Contra, and his social policies etc.
Unicorn: We all recognise the problems with manning a large carrier, but manning is one of the smaller problems with the whole idea. The much bigger problem is with the fact that nobody wants a 40 year old carrier, which uses four times the number of crew that a modern one would. Both the French and British are planning to operate two-carrier forces, with further amphibs, but to be honest, there is no need for an old, unwanted carrier. If the US adopted some modern warship practices, it would have fewer manning difficulties itself!
EdLawGreat pity, I was hoping that they would settle this later in the year, hopefully after switching to a CTOL configuration for the CVF.
EdLawI am not so sure how far the IRIS-T decision goes in that direction, the real issue is whether the IRIS-T gets lock-on after launch capability – the ability to be told to launch, point in a specific direction, then lock on, rather than acquire a target, then launch. This ability is crucial to JSF integration, since any missiles carried internally must have LOAL capability.
As for getting the Typhoon, I believe that the Norwegian authorities are probably responding to the ridiculous unit cost of the JSF, and looking elsewhere. As discussed on some of the other threads, there is question over whether nations would be better buying a combination of UCAVs and Typhoons or Gripens – those fighters lack stealth, but the UCAVs would be stealthy. I suspect the best mix would be the Typhoon and UCAV combination, which together would still be cheaper than JSFs!
Sign In
