EdLawHawkdriver: I agree, the whole concept of the TAG was to deal with the shortcomings of the Invincible class carriers, not some magic new way concept of carrier operations. Personally, I think they should procure sufficient aircraft to fully equip both carriers – i.e. 4 squadrons of 16 F-35Cs each. Then, perhaps, have a small Joint Force to operate F-35Bs, which could support RM units (either from the CVFs or the projected LPH(R)s), and Army Airborne units. For a Falklands type scenario, they could embark units from the RM and Airborne units, and thus have the 32 F-35C and 32 F-35B, spread between the ships!
The RAF would like to receive some F-35Cs as well, since they are one of the few prospects for replacing the Tornado GR-4s – so a total of 8 squadrons (4 RN, 4 RAF) of F-35Cs would be called for, plus 4 squadrons of F-35Bs (jointly). This would, obviously, require a larger JCA purchase, but this is probably necessary anyway.
EdLawPilatus: Taking the islands has never been much of a challenge – the forces on the island are primarily to make an invasion as painful as possible, thus reducing the probability of it happening. Once the Sea Harriers are gone, it does not mean that the RN cannot take back the islands, it just means they have to be more innovative…
One thing to remember is that the Nimrod maritime patrol planes are being given a cruise missile capability, and thus within ~24 hours of any invasion, they can deny Mt Pleasant airfield, and could even strike the Argentine mainland. Without bases on the island, even Mirage 2000s would struggle to reach the fleet until it is quite close. (In addition, there are suggestions that the Harrier GR-9s are going to be using a podded radar, allowing BVR capability anyway).
EdLawKoxinga: I agree, that is why it is essential, in order to maintain such an occupation, to get the maximum possible amount of supplies ashore in the first days of such an operation. Basically, the subs can get down there in somewhere around 2 weeks at most, which gives a very limited window of opportunity to bring in supplies. To support an occupation, vessels like the TCDs are actually not ideal – they are great for the invasion, but what you really need is the maximum possible amount of cargo shipping available, to bring in supplies for what amounts to a siege.
Aircraft will not have such an easy time this time, however, as the RN has ASaC helicopters, and full night-time operating capabilities. Cargo flights in Mt Pleasant would work, especially since the size of the airfield would allow commercial freighters (possibly up to 747 size!) to bring in supplies. Once the British fleet arrives, however, even cargo flights become very dangerous.
EdLawTrident: it is entirely possible to make a split purchase, it is really just that a split purchase would probably have to be a little bigger than the current plan of 150. It does, arguably, make the most sense, perhaps allowing the RN to have a small fleet of F-35Cs of their own, the RAF to have their own batch of F-35Cs, and then a joint fleet of F-35Bs. The problem is really also that if you buy any F-35Bs, then the CVF will probably be completed as STOVL, unfortunately.
Curious: yes, the £3-4bn figure is for both ships – which makes it a very good deal, at either price.
EdLawIf the Argentines get the TCDs and a few Mirage 2000s, they can easily take the islands. The reality is that taking the Falklands has never been much of a challenge – it would take at least a Brigade to defend them properly. The real challenge is, obviously, holding them, which means anti-ship missiles and aircraft. If they could operate a few Mirage 2000s and a couple of dozen A-4s and maybe some AT-63s, equipped with modern missiles from the islands, then things become a little easier.
The idea of getting Ekranoplans is not such a great idea: they are very expensive, not very far developed (the Russians pulled the plug quite early in the development program), and not the most effective way to do things. The best method is to focus on shipping – if you use a basic equation of 100kg per person per day as a worst case scenario, then a total force of ~5000 needs 500 tons per day, so planning for a 100 day siege means laying in 50,000 tons of supplies. This means a lot of shipping is needed!
This is, obviously, a very ballpark way of doing things, but as they always say, logistics, logistics and logistics! The French giving amphibious shipping is a little unfortunate, but the reality is that you need far more than amphibious shipping.
EdLawThe official projection seems to be £3.5bn, which is actually very reasonable, but the government keeps putting ridiculous ‘through life cost projections’ around, which are nonsense figures, e.g. £30bn for the whole life of the ships. This all smacks of the same ridiculous ‘cost’ debates in the ’60s over the CVA-01. Well, at least there is no TSR2 involved this time… (Unless of course you count the JSF, which does have some similarities to the F-111 project)
EdLawI strongly suspect the plan ‘B’ is to complete the carriers as CTOL (sorry Steve…), and thus allow the decision on which fighter to use to be deferred. Since the carrier completion dates have slipped back a little, they can afford to play hardball (well, something resembling hardball) for a little longer. If necessary, they could even threaten to go for an interim solution of using Hornets (I suspect Boeing might be happy to oblige, if it takes the shine off Lockheed).
EdLawSteve: go to http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/netfires.html
They are small missiles, about the same size class as Hellfire, but with a reasonable range – small warhead, but packing a reasonable punch. There are two versions:
PAM: Precision Attack Missile, basically similar in concept to the Hellfire, but with a range of ~40km.
LAM: Loitering Attack Missile, basically a very small cruise missile, with a projected range in the ~200km class. (Admittedly, with quite a small warhead, similar to the TOW missile).
The point is that a JSF might even be able to carry four of these pods, which would allow a single JSF to carry 48 small missiles! They would be sufficient to destroy vehicles, and perhaps SAM sites, which would bring a whole new concept of SEAD missions. You could either carry a mixture, or fly the first few missions of a conflict with LAMs, then switch to the more potent PAMs once things calm down a little.
EdLaw“Solutions to this problem include aerial refuelling and long range UCAVs.”
This is great in theory, but is not always practical. As for UCAVs, they are much better if flying off the carrier – thus can have a much higher number of sorties (i.e. if they do not need to fly back to a land base).
The point about not all targets being able to be attacked with a CV JSF is a little odd, in fact, relatively few targets would not be able to be attacked – but the point is more to do with the much shorter strike range with a given payload. One possible payload with the F-35C is likely to be two Storm Shadows, but with the F-35B, only one missile can be carried (this is according to one of the many websites, but cannot remember which one, though it is a very reliable one from what I remember).
EdLawThat is certainly an interesting photo… It is, if memory serves (which it often does not), the wrong shape of blast deflector – they realised the need to have side deflectors as well, in more of a ‘U’ shape, to avoid causing damage to anything around the side.
Basically, the total number of aircraft on deck is likely to be quite impressive whichever design they go for – I am not anti-STOVL, I just support CTOL more. The real issue in the CTOL v. STOVL debate is actually the supporting aircraft, i.e. AEW aircraft. A STOVL carrier is slightly cheaper, but the CTOL carrier is more capable (you must admit that the F-35C is more combat capable than the B version), but CTOL may offer a cheaper and better option for the MASC program.
EdLawAnd fries Scooter?
It is a great looking design – one advantage of using cats though is that they would be more likely to be called supercarriers, even though they will probably not tip the scales at more than 65,000 tons. Also, closer cooperation with the USN would certainly be a great benefit. I suspect the best scenario will be: UK not sure about JSF, so opts for CTOL carrier, then selects the F-35C, once they are ordered, a follow-on tranche of F-35Bs procured to support expeditionary forces.
EdLawJust a thought, but if you compare the dimensions of the AGM-124 and the new Netfires missiles (PAM and LAM), they are very close. Just think if they brought back the dispenser pod, and filled them with Netfires missiles – the A-10 was to be capable of carrying at least four, maybe even six of the pods – it would allows strike aircraft to pack a massive punch! A JSF might be able to carry four pods, allowing 48 missiles!
EdLawIt seems very spacious, but bear in mind how few planes are shown parked on deck. If the RN only embark the small numbers of aircraft they are proposing, then I agree, there will be quite a lot of deck space left over, but that is not necessarily a good thing…
EdLaw“Maybe EMALS will be shorter (do you have any info?) but what you don’t seem to realise is that a STOVL aircraft can adjust it’s take off run to it’s weight, short run for light loads and long run for heavy loads.”
I am aware that STOVL aircraft can use a shorter (note shorter, not short by any means) takeoff run, but it is always longer than a cat run.
“Yes you can, there is a deck park next to the ski-jump.”
Yes, but only a single line, which does not offset the greater parking area of a CTOL carrier.
“Name me a two catapult carrier that has both on the waist, why would you put another catapult on the angled deck? it would prevent you from using one of your cats during landings!”
Actually, it is how American carriers commonly operated – they would begin launching an Alpha strike using the bow as a parking area. On the CdG, they chose to place one cat on the bow, and one at the waist, but this seriously limits the ability to launch major strikes. As for launching simultaneously, this would never normally happen – but remember, you could still use the waist cat to launch. It would, ironically, be a bit harder to launch a STOVL aircraft during the landing phase, given the need for much greater runway length (including the bow) to be clear!
As for the impressive launch rate demonstration, I agree, it is indeed impressive. However, I still feel that the abilities of a CTOL carrier can, if not absolutely match, at least give a similar rate if necessary. It also has to be remembered that a larger deck would not increase the rate – they are rolling forward, and there are physical time constraints (two planes cannot be launched simultaneously on an Invincible or CVF).
EdLawThe cats are far longer than they need to be – apart from anything else, the length of cat run can be even shorter with EMALS (since it has a constant acceleration, unlike steam driven cats). The main problem with that parking arrangement is that it is not comparative – neither shows a realistic launch event. If they actually showed a genuine launch layout, then it would be clear how many more aircraft can be parked on a CTOL carrier in the launch phase.
For a landing event, you may indeed need more plane manglers, but that is not really much of an issue – you just park planes on the bow and in the hangar – that is where they need to go anyway. Remember, in a STOVL carrier, for launches, you cannot park anything on the bow, but in a CTOL carrier, you can pack the bow with planes. (The graphic for the CTOL carrier shows one bow and one waist cat, which is unusual – if going for two cats, you would normally make both waist cats).
Sign In
