EdLaw“How can a single take off lane take up more space than 2-4 catapult lanes? I agree that catapults can launch 2-4 aircraft faster, but the next 2-4 need to be hooked up and made ready for launch while all a STOVL aircraft has to do is taxi into position and launch.”
The difference is the length of deck needed. With the cats, you can hook up a new aircraft for launch in ~30-60 seconds, since the next aircraft can be in position behind the blast deflectors. With STOVL, the aircraft need to be taxied a greater distance, and still have a longer takeoff run. The result of this length of takeoff is that you must park the aircraft on the bow and aft (or in the hangar). With CTOL, you can park an entire Alpha strike aft, simply bringing the aircraft forward for launch. This results in faster takeoffs.
As for aircraft hovering over the deck waiting for landing, that is not actually true with the F-35B, which actually makes a short landing run, rather than a true vertical landing. Also, it takes a lot of fuel to hold in the landing – you are running at full thrust (not afterburner) just to stay airborne. I agree, once landed, the aircraft just move out of the way, but that applies in either case. As for doing a bolter, that is becoming increasingly rare with newer aircraft – you can either hand over landing to the flight control system, or use an EVS system, which allows you to see the meatball much better.
“That’s just a matter of opinion and we will have to agree to disagree”
While I agree that you are free to form your own conclusions, I would point you to the fact that it is simple physics – taking a UCAV and STOVL UCAV with similar characteristics, the only (necessary) difference will be the engine. The UCAV only needs ~15-20,000lb of thrust, (GE F110 or similar), as against the ~35-40,000lb thrust engine (P&W F135 or similar) you would need for STOVL. By the very nature of things, a more complex, more powerful, engine will always cost more.
As for the deck layout, I would not use MOD-source graphics… (Remember also that more of the bow can be used in a CTOL carrier)
EdLawI do not dismiss everything you say, but I do say you are incorrect in some of your assumptions. There is no real justification for the argument that STOVL aircraft will be able to launch and land faster – the takeoff of the STOVL aircraft takes up more deck space, and timewise, takes just as long. With CTOL, you can have aircraft readying for launch, immediately behind an aircraft being catapulted. With STOVL, the launch phase takes too much space to allow aircraft to ‘form up’ for launch.
The ‘limitations’ of the cats and arrestor gear are simply not relevant – F-35Bs will actually take much longer to get aboard, since they have to stop above the ship, and slowly descend, rather than simply come in to land.
The cost difference between a UCAV and a STOVL UCAV would be massive, truly massive. A normal UCAV could have a unit cost as low as $15-25m, but a STOVL UCAV of equivalent capability (weapons load and combat radius) would come in at around $40-60m, and that is a conservative estimate.
EdLaw“I disagree, UCAVs don’t have cockpits and they don’t need to be the same shape or size as piloted aircraft so they can be built much lighter and smaller to match the range and payload performance of piloted aircraft.”
This is a popular myth – the control systems for a UCAV actually take up a similar volume to that of a pilot. Notably, you need to install a satcomms system, which actually takes up a lot of volume, ironically, a similar shape to a cockpit! As for shape, combat aircraft are the shape they are because it is the most efficient, not because of the need to have a pilot, so removing the pilot actually changes very little in design terms. As for size, the need to carry a given warload dictates a given size, as they have discovered with the X-45 and X-47, which have grown dramatically for this very reason.
“In your opinion it’s a myth, in reality it’s a fact”
Again, this is a popular myth. The amount of time taken to cat a fighter is actually minimal, and takes a lot less deck length than a STO, thus allowing more deck space for deck movements. As Sealord said, the real restrictions on sortie numbers are the ability of the aircraft to fly (which is a maintenance problem, which the more complex STOVL aircraft is worse for), and the ability to refuel and rearm aircraft. The reality is that CTOL aircraft are actually more efficient, and you can launch them somewhat faster (two or three cats allow a whole alpha strike to be put up in under fifteen minutes, which is shorter than the time required for STOVL).
EdLaw“Why would it be hard to make a STOVL UCAV with the performance of a F-35C?”
Because the development costs of a UCAV are not that much lower than the costs of a manned aircraft. The unit cost of such an aircraft would be very high as well. Remember, you would actually need a more powerful engine than that of the F-35B to give the performance of the F-35C.
“Training for the STOVL JSF will only need simulators and local operational qualification, training for the CV JSF will need training on different aircraft and will have a much higher failure rate.”
Why do you assume that training for a more complex aircraft will automatically be cheaper? Also, training would be done in the US, but as is the trend, a lot of the training will be in simulators – pilots will be able to clock up dozens of carrier landings in simulators before even setting foot in a T-45! Also, why assume a higher loss rate? The fact is that (non combat) losses are not likely to be much higher if higher at all.
“A V/STOL AEW solution doesn’t need developing as I’ve already mentioned.”
A helicopter based AEW has severe performance limitations, in terms of altitude, range, speed and endurance (all of which are massively important). Also, as I mentioned, the Italian AEW Merlin would not be the same as a UK Merlin AEW, so the mere existence of a similar helicopter doing a similar job does not mean much for development.
EdLawAlso, developing a STOVL UCAV would cost far too much – not just to develop, but the unit cost would probably be at least double that of a conventional UCAV (which have already been developed!).
As for the Italian AEW Merlin – that is totally different to what a UK version would be, thus would not save any development costs. On the other hand, the UK could buy the Hawkeye on good terms, straight off the shelf. Also, treating the two JSF variants as the same is not very sensible, the F-35C can carry much more, much further. In terms of cruise missiles, the F-35C should be able to carry two missiles, versus the F-35Bs one.
EdLaw“(you could even negotiate with the French about pooling your AEW fleets to save yet more).”
Forgive him, for he has sinned! The idea of pooling assets with the French is not a good one – it would make things very difficult to actually use the aircraft outside of a France/UK coalition, just think about another Iraq or Falklands! We would almost be better pooling AEW with the US! (Though I do not support pooling the assets in any case)
EdLawI disagree, the decision to go for the STOVL version was for two main reasons:
1) To be seen to be replacing the Harrier, continuing the STOVL traditions
2) To allow selection of a smaller carrier if budget problems are too great
Neither reason is particularly compelling though, and as such, a review of the decision is currently underway.
EdLawThe other major factor is range: in the Falklands, a lot of the risks were due to the carriers having to be very close to launch Harriers. When the new carriers enter service, the JSFs will allow strike missions to be flown from 400+ miles, rather than 100-150. This reduces the risks posed by enemy aircraft, but also by shore-based weapons.
Specifically, in a Falklands situation, the carriers could be 600 miles out to launch JSFs carrying Storm Shadow standoff missiles, and 400 miles for carrying LGBs etc… Remember, this is 400 miles from the Fallands, i.e. another 400 miles from the Argentine mainland (assuming you deny them use of the islands themselves) – during the war, Super Etendards and Skyhawks could just about reach the islands, thus would still be 400 miles short!
EdLawThe funny bit is that the cost of the carriers is actually quite low – they will pack a massive punch, for a moderate sum. This is certainly (in my book anyway) a better deal than a moderate punch, for a moderate sum! The UK needs to ‘punch above its weight’, in much the same way as the Aussies punch above their weight with their F-111s.
EdLawThe economy variant Don Chan? I would not want to be in there if a sudden real-life threat emerged, necessitating launch of the real missile on the lower left…
EdLawHmm, Sealord, what is your source on that? The proposals, known as Project Romeo, which was the original PA2 proposal, Project Juliette, the follow on to Romeo, but also a straightforward French derivative of the CVF are all slightly different. The single island seems ungainly, and a twin island arrangement certainly seems the more likely.
EdLawThe real advantages are in terms of the exhaust ducting – the CVF has four large gas turbines, which need to have their exhaust in the island structure. If there were not two islands, the one island would be huge. The other reason is the separation of functions: the flag and command areas are fore, with aviation in the aft island. Personally, I suspect they just figured the Thales design looked better…
EdLawYes, because catapult technology is so dangerous… Just think, you could replace all the current fighters, bombers and missiles with a piece of metal, fired by catapult…
EdLawIs it me, or does the island look dangerously far back, i.e. very close to the landing path?
It is interesting that they claim ‘cost savings’ as a reason for the new design – the ships are predicted as ~$3-4bn more than a new Nimitz class, all to save a predicted $5bn over the 50 year life of the carrier…
EdLawIf I remember correctly, the plan had been to build a dual-purpose Tomahawk, but that had proven too expensive, so they ended up just building land attack versions. There may still be some anti-ship versions, though they would be quite elderly these days.
Sign In
