PongogloBadger – thanks for that. Most informative. So, accepting that CAP/AA capability will be a core part of what the RN (assuming the RAF will require it principally for strike..) will need our ‘B’s to do, how limiting do we believe the ability to pull only 7.0g will be. Does it fundamentally compromise its capability as a fighter or not? Interesting that the primary fighter of the USN the F18 E/F can only pull 7.6g and they seem quiet happy with that, how critical the extra 0.6g?
Even when flying ‘clean’ or in stealth mode with an internal AA load only, assuming 4 x AMRAAM or equivalent, the F35B would appear to have at least twice the firepower of the much vaunted Sea Harrier, and more so if you add the gun pod, assuming that it is as stealthy as claimed and which we probably wont buy anyhow 😡 If you factor in Mach+ speed and infinitely superior sensors then it will be a much more formidable beast.
For what its worth Im also of the opinion that when at sea the UK F35Bs will spend a lot of time on conventional ie non stealthy CAP. Therefore the potential for an A/A load out of 4 x AMRAAM internal, 2 x AMRAAM external 2 x ASRAAM external, 2 x 480 gallon tanks plus 1 x gun is well on the cards – or is my optimism wild?
PongogloAres have a link to an in depth analysis of whether the UK knows what it is doing in terms of defence planning (centred around the whole CVF program):
Nice spot MrM! I also found the link to the journalists visit to the WASP trials of interest. ‘A morning on the Wasp’. Some good phots there too, as well as some nice amateur vids of take off and landings. Real engine noise for once rather than Lockheed Martin video spin, gives a good idea of how the Lightning B will look and sound when flying off our ships. Ear defenders most def The rather colourful discussion board below is also worth a look. Bill Sweetman as usual cant resist chucking in an oar.
PongogloWhy is another u-turn unlikely? Because you prefer the “B” over the “C”?
No – actually I was and am a big fan of the long range, big wing striker that is the ‘C’. Not least because it would seem to provide the solution to the RAF’s deep strike requirement which the Storm Shadow capable Tornado currently provides, as well as of course the RN’s need for carrier jets. It is for this reason that I believe the CAS (Chief of the Air Staff) supported the initial switch.
If the cost of the conversion had been such that we could have afforded to convert BOTH carriers to CTOL, AND buy enough F35C to surge a full air group to both in the extreme, then I would definitely have rather this to have been the case, however well before the ‘switch back’ I was beginning to have my doubts. My primary concern being that QE as lead ship would have spent many years without a fast jet capability – as many have said, effectively an oversized LPH. I believe that this would have opened up the whole project to such ridicule in the UK press and public perception that it might have killed it all together. I was also persuaded by the well reasoned arguments of many RN aviators and others (some on the former CVF construction thread) that STOVL was so much easier to do at sea as regards the operations that we, the BRITS are likely to undertake. With all respect to 19K11 this thread is after all the UK F35 debate??
I spose the thing that really swung me to the ‘B’ was the the argument that in UK service the decision had been made that the Lightning fleet would be operated 60/40 RAF/RN. Not the right decision maybe but for those who understand UK Service politics, one that will never be reversed. The majority of our surge capability, whether we like it or not, will therefore come from the RAF. I have never believed that the RAF will have the time or inclination to maintain anything but a very small token component carrier capable, or indeed at sea. This when it comes to conventional CTOL ie ‘cats n traps’. STOVL however is a very different story. A much easier skill to practice and sustain. the RAF have done this with Harrier time and time again. In 1982 the first time that most 1 Squadron pilots had landed on a ship was when they did it mid Atlantic in some quiet unpleasant seas!
Why is another u-turn unlikely? Because you prefer the “B” over the “C”?
No 19K11, I do not prefer the ‘B’ to the ‘C’, but if its a question of both carriers with the ‘B’ rather than one with the ‘C’, thus providing the UK with at least the possibility of a continuous capability ready for sea, I do believe the decision to revert is right.
PongogloAs a former Marine (6/81-6/89) I dispute that they are as separate as you think.
As an example, NavAir controls both Marine and Naval Aviation… in fact, Marine Aviation is considered for all but immediate operational purposes to be a branch of Naval Aviation… not only does NavAir set all standards, control all training, and govern the development, operation, and maintenance of all Marine aircraft, it also “owns” all aircraft operated by the USN and USMC.
Marine and Navy squadrons flying aircraft of the same model/block can (and regularly do) find themselves flying airframes that were recently assigned to a squadron in the other service.
Thanks for that. Very interesting and useful to get first hand USMC insight into how you do fast jet, and I for one am pretty certain that the obviously successful trials that the USN/USMC conducted on the Wasp played a part at least in the apparent U-turn over our choice of plane. They have at least taken the aircraft to sea, flown multiple take off’s and landings, and off smaller ships than the QE Class to boot. from the videos I have seen, all without cavernous holes being burnt in the deck, or flight deck crew being blown overboard, as some might have led us to expect!
However useful the USMC experience may be, and however valuable the experience we have gained whenever a USMC Squadron has embarked on CVS, the UK requirement surely differs considerably, not least because this will be the only type of fast jet we will take to sea? For example we will not have the luxury of a CVN in support, upon which an LHA based USMC MEU could normally rely? The UK F35B will therefore be routinely required to undertake a lot of missions which the USMC aircraft (although capable of) will not, not least flying CAP for the carrier group, or in the littoral, the boots we put ashore.
The question therefore I would put to the group is that whether we like it or not the decision now is made. We will get the ‘B’ and another u-turn is highly unlikely to say the least. How do we feel that the UK variant will perform in all the other missions that we might expect it to perform, CAP, CAS and IDS. In the USMC case we would expect it to operate primarily in the CAS role, providing close support to the marines on the shore, but in the UK case, it will have to function as a conventional fighter, provide close air support, do the deep strike thing that Tornado does now, and potentially even maritime strike?
In the video below Jon Beesley rates the ‘B’ very highly as a ‘fighter’, be very interested to hear peoples views, when it comes to air to air, how do we think it will do??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-J1KksHUQ&feature=player_embedded
PongogloHow much money will it cost when the British switch back to “cats and traps” next year?
An interesting article below I hadn’t seen linked before. Does seem really strange if the build is going to schedule as would seem, we get her in the water complete by 2013 and all the modules come fully fitted and ready to go, including bridge consuls etc, why then does it appear the commissioning date has slipped even further from 2016 to 2017 and we wont even see any aircraft at sea on trials for another year after that??:mad:
PongogloThe stern runway overhang was also there, so to add an angled deck for SRVL it would have been pretty much just a case of a paint job and adjustments to lighting etc. I also note that the JBD was also very much part of the design at this stage, does anyone know if this still to be the case?
As in…
PongogloThere would have to be some changes like the additional runway overhang and the moving of the port bow CWIS mount.
The stern runway overhang was also there, so to add an angled deck for SRVL it would have been pretty much just a case of a paint job and adjustments to lighting etc. I also note that the JBD was also very much part of the design at this stage, does anyone know if this still to be the case?
Of course they could even at this stage in the build add these features back to both QE and PoW with reletive ease as it wouldn’t require any extensive reworking of internal compartments as we were told that with EMALS 🙁 would have been the case. My bet however is that they wont, and will now go full steam ahead with both ships to be completed to the final STOVL configuration and an identical spec.
PongogloJonesy;
Completely agree. My point being so many posters seem to think the sponsons aren’t going to be fitted in STOVL configuration, ar at least that’s the impression they give. As you said, it won’t be a big deal to install the deck lighting and DAPS, so it should be an idea given worthy consideration if it improves the safety of SRVLs.
Well the port ‘angle’ extension was definitely there in the original Thales/BAE STOVL design, although not as extensive as that depicted in the post SDSR images. This from 2004 – I think DSEI. It was obvious that the intent was to complete the ship as ready for conversion as possible at that time. I remember asking a member of the design team if that was how she would finally look and he stated that the angle on the sponson was to be deleted to save on ‘cutting steel’ that wasn’t any longer required at this stage , also that the angled panels atop the bridge roof would also go as ‘the technology wasnt yet there’. Clearly the intent then was that this was to accommodate some sort of phased array radar or such.
I remember thinking it was a pity, as apart from resulting in cleaner, more ‘proper carrier’ lines, it would also have allowed an additional offset port helo position, and the ability to more rapidly convert to CTOL in future if required. My belief is that at this stage CVF was still inherently a’flexible’ design intended for easier conversion to ‘cats n traps’ but that this was eroded between 2004 and 2010 to save on ready cash, with the results we all now know.
PongogloTo this…..:diablo:
PongogloQueen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers being built to fulfill the CVF requirement.
New thread to focus on the assembly of the new Royal Navy carriers as they start to take shape and to be completed as per their original STOVL design.
Damn – means I’ll have have to revert too. Switch back my screen saver from this….
PongogloFor RAN? Can only be B. Canberra class although only being procured as LHD’s still have the ramp and I’m sure some cunning RAN type ensured it was retained with just this in mind.
For the RN? Decision now made and I think the right one. Hammond at least confirmed that both ships will be retained in UK service, even if only one operational at a time – ‘extended readiness’ still better than ‘sold’, and ‘to cover refits’ even more so. If were real we would never have found the money to refit QE to operate the ‘C’ so would only have a carrier for some of the time, and for years not at all.
We already own at least one ‘B’ and Brits are flying it as we post. I’m confident that we will see some doing trials off QE’s deck from 2016 if not before, and am very happy with that so for me, for us too, its the ‘B’.
Interoperability with allies? Well we wont see French or USN jets flying off our ship, but we can still fly off theirs if we want, plus can still go both ways with the USMC, Italy and Spain, and one day who knows – hopefully the Aussies too!:)
I vote B.
PongogloIt has been confirmed that the first carrier will be completed in original STOVL form including the ramp. At the moment once the designs are done and the decision has been made to stick with CATOBAR then the second carrier will be completed in CATOBAR form.
Well this from Wednesday’s Portsmouth News, a quote from Hammond (you know..the bloke whos’e rumoured to be the Defence Sec after we lost Dr Fox :()
Mr Hammond said: ‘Clearly, fitting cats and traps to one carrier is an expensive proposition. Retrofitting them to Queen Elizabeth would be a more expensive proposition and that’s one of the issues we’ve got to take in to account.’
I actually took this in a positive light, as it does seem to confirm that they are at least giving serious thought to retrofitting QE once POW enters service, but maybe I am too much of an optomist, for as the News concluded;
‘There is speculation the equipment could now cost an extra £2bn, but Mr Hammond was unable to confirm this figure, although he did suggest the government can only afford to fit cats and traps to the navy’s second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales. This would render HMS Queen Elizabeth useless if Britain decided to stick with F-35Cs.’
PongogloIt has been confirmed that the first carrier will be completed in original STOVL form including the ramp. At the moment once the designs are done and the decision has been made to stick with CATOBAR then the second carrier will be completed in CATOBAR form.
Really – must have missed this – is this something new?? If so, and they are adding back the ramp, must surely indicate a change of plan. The only post SDSR announcements I can find categorically state that QE will be completed to the original form but WITHOUT the ramp. Its even confirmed in the programme directors blog. Have we a source?
PongogloDJ
If we need to strike deep inland we are going to use TLAM anyway as we have no space-based or VLO airborne recon assets to target in realtime at deep strike ranges. If we are shooting at fixed, pre-identified, targets why are we sending manned strikers when we have TLAM???. Deep strike as a justification for CATOBAR on CVF is, frankly, absurd.
.
Here here! I for one have never seen the logic in putting big big bombs on small, fast, planes. Particularly now that we have highly accurate stand off weapons with significant range? What of course we should have done is this –
Kinloss – Tripoli? 1,899 Miles. Un-refuelled range Nimrod MRA4. 6,910 Miles (I have heard as much as nine?) 4 x Stormshadow on underwing pylons, internal bomb bay 22,000 lbs. Job done.
And the really sad thing? We could have. Whilst it is easy to take rumour of Machiavellian inter AND intra service rivalry too much to heart, there was something really strange about the death of Nimrod, not least why they were bulldozed on cam with such indecent haste. Apparently the attached photo giving proof that Stormshadow was not only planned for integration on MRA4, but they had actually got as far as to hang it off the wing. It is however also rumoured that this is a photo that one Glenn Torpy, Air Chief Marshall of the Royal Airforce, Tornado pilot, and now listed on LinkedIn as ‘the Senior Military Advisor’ at BAE, ordered never to see the light of day……
In memorium of SuperNimrod, an original contributor to this thread….
PongogloWell for me the decider has got to be the number of hulls? I like many would have loved to see the ‘C’ in UK service, range, payload etc. I would also admit that I got carried away a bit by the romance of ‘cat n traps’. If we could have afforded two hulls converted – brilliant. Truth is if were honest is that was never going to happen, and that either QE or POW was destined to end up as a big ‘White elephant’, with no fast jets, derided by the press and other detractors right from the start, and I think that would have killed us off. if we could have made the ‘C’ work, and for the right price, would have been excellent. It would have been a first class Tornado replacement as well, and even the First Lord conceded recently that GR4 did a brilliant job over Libya – and relatively cheaply as well? Truth is however that we are not the US. We would never be able to put a CV group, plus an ARG, or even a MEU to sea simultaneously. Carrier strike has long been replaced in doctrine by CEPP, and CEPP, whatever the single service die hard’s might wish, is the ability for all to think ‘Purple’ and as a part of this to deploy a tailored air group when required. A TAG means at times all THREE services, however unpalatable to some that might be. To the USMC this is at the very heart of what they do. co-ordinated and simultaneous operation of fast jet, rotary, and the land force component from a single deck. As Frosty and Jonesy amongst others have pointed out frequently – It has been, and must be for us. To me, with my admittedly very limited experience of Joint ops, its a no brainer. If its a choice, as harsh financial reality dictates, of one with the the ‘C’, or two with the ‘B’ – then too ‘B’ it MUST be?
(Apologies to TD and Jed – who have heard this all before!)
Sign In
