Geoff_BWell the Army have only managed a stay of execusion, whilst they are deployed in Afghanistan. Just wait when that winds down and they are sat back in blighty after being pulled from Germany. Expect their force structure and numbers to be re-evaluated prior to adjustment to bring them in line with the capabilities of the other two forces !
The Type 42’s are earmarked for replacement by Type 45 over the next couple of years and the Type 22’s dont have long left, although culling them may act as excuse to keep Type 26 numbers lower.
Good news on the Carriers if true and airgroup numbers sound as expected from other rumours. Nice to have both completed and in service in one role or another as effectivly the same as the CVS are used. Always possible to expand the airgoup should funds allow circumstances warrant it.
The Helicopter situation appears a little confused, i though the Sea King upgrade package was culled when the Chinooks were ordered and the Merlins HC3 were to be reassigned to RN control ?
The rest of the Aircraft questions sounds rather ropey too but as an Army source thats not unsurprising.
G
Geoff_BAlot depends on the SDSR and whats been decided in that. Apart from if we retain the carriers & JCA, does the carrier strike role and the JCA requirement still stand true from 2002 or if the UK strike role is completely bassed upon Carrier strike, and does its rely on closer interaction with USN & MN carrier groups which would put the onus on to CATOBAR and the F-35C rather than STOVL and the F-35B.
The other factor is cost and service dates, should they be required to be up and running 2016 then possibly the F-18 E/F may have the edge as to availablity, but if willing to wait then the F-35 is the obvious preffered choice becuase of our direct involvement in the program and the capabilities it offers.
Of course if CATOBAR is preferred then its quite possible they may lease US F-18s as a stop gap to cover the role and train crews prior to F-35C deliveries much in the same way the Harriers would act as a stop gap for the F-35B.
Geoff_BI suppose with the slowly reducing CVN numbers, there comes a point that a ARG may need to deploy on a tactical basis without the benefit of a CGB providing top cover. Africa, South America, etc, places where USMC could provide its own organic air support, without the need for its big brother CVN back up.
My point was as these are dedicate ships for the USMC air wing, they could have improved the design to account for the operation of their new aircraft types.
Geoff_BYes something along those lines.
Quick work 😀
Geoff_BIf the America class is optomised for Air operations especially for the F-35B & CV-22 is the revised Wasp design the best for the job.
Just wondering if they should really look at incorporating features from the UKs CVF design to improve the potential of these air operations.
Fit sponsons to increase deck parking and aircraft movement without fowling the actual flight deck area. Utilise the sponsons for Vertical landing keeping the flight line clear for F-35 runs. Landing spots on the sponson can be configured to vent out the excess heat without an adverse effect on the decks below. Add ski-jump & JBD to improve F-35B performance. extended flight deck over the stern so the B’s can do a rolling landing which appears to be the preferred option for carry back.
Yes i know the USN would have kittens complaining that it might threaten their super carriers, but the traditional LHD layout is not really efficient for flight ops with the new airgroups due to be adopted by the USMC. The inovations are there and the benefits obvious, it just appears that they could do better than just the bog standard LHD layout with a ship which is focused on supporting the Marine airgroup
Geoff_Bguys whilst i accept that the marines are crucial to the F35B its not the same as discussing what should go on the decks of the UK carriers.
Yes it does, the US Marines are also the first customer, and will be conducting the sea trials. What they discover as a result will have some bearing on UK JCA.
It could all go swimingly as LM have predicted and the F-35B may exceed expectations so everybody is happy bar the bean counters as the aircraft can be ordered for production and deliveries scheduled.
If they run into problems or require revisions to fully meet their requirements, then this could delay the program, increase the cost and have a knock on effect to UK Deliveries and service dates.
Another factor could be that whilst the USMC may find the F-35B performance acceptable for their needs (as it is primarily a STOVL CAS to them) It may not fully meet the UK JCA requirement, in which case the UK will either have to decide that its the best they are going to get, or push LM to improve those areas it may be lacking in or alternatively look at what the options are with CATOBAR aircraft.
To be honest this process should really have occured next year following the reports from the completed Flight test and evaluation program plus the USMC sea trials. The fly in ointment which has led to this thread is that the SDSR program has had the full carrier strike program under review along with everything else in the MoD and this is what may lead to a premature JCA final selection based on affordability or a revison to our overall stratagy and capability rather than the original plan.
Despite what others have siad the F-35B is only the preferred option for JCA and the carrier design & build has progressed with the instruction to use this assumption until instructed otherwise. The MoD always left the door open just in case the JSF program or the STOVL element failed as it has been under the spotlight many times by various administrations (mainly due to cost grounds, rather than technological !) as quite a few other projects have been canned in the past which can leave plans in tatters (Skybolt is a prime example).
Geoff
Geoff_BArgentina? Might be interested, but we wouldn’t sell.
Venezuela? Similar problem.
Brazil? Wants proper carriers.
Argentina is supposed to be getting the the French Foudre assault ship as some point in the near future and has just bought a pair of Mil Mi-17s for its Antartic flight.
Venezuela – Thankfully the Russian ship building industry is still limited, but Chavez did get their new patrol ships from Spain so always possible if they had the money they could buy something larger. However isn’t Venezuela military stature more one of defence so they could fight off a US attack for whatever reason ?
Brazil – In the BAE press release promoting a tie up with the Brazillian Navy, as well as the Type 26 and OPV, there was mention of Carrier technology !
Geoff_BThat’s right, I’m expressing an idea that I am putting up for professional and respectful debate – that relates to the topic of the F-35B, but possibly only tangentially related to the UK situation.
Well with the USMC being the primary customer for the F-35B, what happens with the USMC directly effect the UK’s procurement of the F-35B whilst it remains the preferred option for the JCA requirement.
Alot rides on how well the F-35B flight testing & sea trials go, should they go smoothly with no issues then the issue will be mainly over cost and the numbers that can be afforded versus required !.
Should issues arise during testing regarding performance, capability and reliability that prompt further reworking or redesign to resolve or worse that ships and airfield need modification to allow the F-35B to land then its likely to turn into a nasty cat fight as nobody wants to see a repeat of the V-22 saga.
Geoff_BPutting main gate back past 2015 is probably the best idea, it gives them time to review the options, the costs and what money is available, plus by then we will be out of Afghanistan and the Carriers should be built or in assembly and we have an idea where we want to be in the world. That way the following government can take the appropriate choice what ever that may be, and in line with the political, economic and technical changes over the coming 5 years.
Geoff_Bi think its fair to say that the idea of CATOBAR aircraft (F18/F35C) being cheaper to operate on the existing carrier design has been demonstrated to be the false.
If the F35B is not significantly more expensive than the CATOBAR options then stories of F18 deals are just that, single source stories- with no evidence to back them up.
Talk of the RAF undermining the RN is agenda based and a distraction from the point of the thread.
From an objective point of view, how is it bad for the RN if it has state of the art carriers (if that is its primary aim) operating cutting edge strike fighters (the F35B).
I just don’t see the discussion now that we have looked at the facts.
The thing that has been a real eye opener for me (because i am so beautifully naive:D) is how much agenda politics there is in this aspect of the defence debate.
Erm Except you still don’t know what the true costs and capabilities actually are for F-35B.
Once people actually start thinking about whats being said about the F-35B and not what Spin LM are saying about the program then perhaps you will understand the facts and why they are being discussed !.
There is major concern in the UK over the cost of the F-35B and if it can meet the JCA requirement. Thats why these disscussions are happening. If it was purely slight cost increase over the original expectations then the discussion would be focused on purely numbers and how they would best be utilised !!
The F-35B has been plagued with unpredicted issues since it started from the weight problem during the design too its STOVL flight testing. Component failures, component not upto specification for the operational environment they are expected to operate in. Thrust and its effects not correctly predicted. Carriers and airfields may require extensive protection against the focused heat produced in full Vertical landing mode. The more you think about it the more it appears they relied too much on computer modelling and not enough actual testing as many of these should have been found during testing of both components, test rigs, engine runs and teathered flights over the test pits (Certainly makes you think the the X-35Bs should have been better utilised as flight test rigs !)
LM have had to re-revise downward the STOVL flight test program as a result of these problems, and have increased the CTOL testing of A,B & C models to compensate or risk being penalised by the DoD for failure to meet targets.
Until the F-35B succesfully completes its STOVL flight testing so its actual capabilities when flying in this mode are known, together with succesful Sea Trials & acceptance by the USMC will the actual capabilities of the F-35B be known. Should it fail in these last two areas then expect further delayed production and cost hike whilst those issues are resolved.
Despite what some might say the F-35B is the worst of the bunch becuase of its STOVL requirement. The A appears to be doing well in its development and the C has got off to a great start too. BUT The B has to prove itself to be both capable and reliable due to its nesessity to fly STOVL when embarked aboard ships.
Geoff_BOnce again look at the Falklands, look at Enduring Freedom these were actions instigated predominantly with naval air, but, with the long-term intent to prosecute them from a shore FOB as necessary. With the Falklands the victory came before the lodgement plan became necessary, but, that plan still existed.
Wasn’t most of the matting & equipment still onboard Atlantic Conveyor when it was destroyed by the Exocet along with the Chinooks & Wessex helicoters ?
I take it the idea was to off load the GR3s to have them cover the advance and use it as refuelling point for the SHARs so they could maintain cover over San Carlos water as the Carriers had to stay out of range of Argentine Aircraft limiting the Harriers CAP endurance somewhat ?
With CVF they could be used anywhere, that why we want them as the flexible platform.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we did a stint along side a USN supercarrier on either the Gulf Station or Indian Ocean, but as only part of one of those long distance tours they like to conduct every few years. A CVF wouldn’t take on an Amrilla Patrol
If CVF do end up CATOBAR then you might see the USN cross decking and joint exercise, vise versa if STOVL then you would see similar with the USMC, although might prove interesting when they compare operating from USS America to HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Geoff_BYeap they should have held off retiring Sea Harriers till the GR9 conversion program was completed rather than putting all 7 Harrier & SHAR squadrons into one unit with only about a quarter of the airframes available. To be honest they should really added radar to some of the GR9’s when doing the conversions, partly to retain the skills till the F-35 was ready.
BTW on the Radar issue i did write to the MoD about it when the SHARs were earmarked for early retirement. The answer then was the money and that the Type 45’s would be able to provide adaquate defence till the JCA arrived – right before they wimnped out on ordering the remaining ships !!!.
G
Geoff_BAny talk of smaller carriers depends on if the F-35B is still the preferred JCA option or if the F-35B actually enters service. If not then all these smaller ships are just LHA’s limited to Helicopters.
BTW Philbob most of the delays with CVF stem from the last Govt as they committed to the carrier replacements but then held back main gate, the actual order and then reset the delivery schedule to delay the program and increase costs.
Geoff_BOnly 650 $ million saved and smaller/less capable ships ?
not totally true…..
I) YOU FORGET THE AIRWING (and their cost:rolleyes:)
At +/- 150 $ million per F-35 copy :rolleyes:, a CVF airwing (+/- 32 F-35) cost around 4,8 $ billion (AEW/ASW helico excluded…).
For a LHD, the additional cost include only a handfull (6/9) of F-35 (900 $ million to 1,3 $ billion), because usually the transports helico is taken from army/air force stocksII Ships comparaison
Queen Elizabteh class
Lenght: 284 meters
Beam: 73 meters (max)
Draught: 11 meters
Displacement: 65/72 000 tons
Speed: 26 knots max on trials, 25 knots max operationnal
Autonomy: 8000 to 10 000 nm at 15 knots
Crew: 1450 (ship crew: 600; airwing : up to 850). Total possible accomodation for 1650.
Airwing (pure strike carrier ops): +/- 32 F-35; 4 to 6 AEW/ASW helico
Airwing (helico carrier ops): +/- 24 helico (transports/SAR/ASW/AEW) + 6/9 F-35.
Cargo capacity: Aviation hangar able to be modified if necessary to carry numerous vehicles, troops & others cargos (the famous helico carrier conversion), but at the expense of a major airwing (F-35) reduction.
Landing crafts: not capable, except if the ship is heavily modified (= additionnal cost), to receive crane/systems to deploy small LCM on davit.
Cost per ship: +/- 2,5 £ billion (R&D included)
Airwing cost pers ship: +/- 5 $ billionCamberra/Juan Carlos I LHD design:
Lenght: 230 meters
Beam: 32 meters
Draught: 7,18 meters
Displacement: +/- 27/30 000 tons
Speed: 20,5 knots
Autonomy: 8000 nm at 15 knots, 9250 nm at 12 knots
Crew: 243 ship crew (+ 172 for airwing) and +/- 900 troops (+ 146 additionals). Total possible accomodation for +/- 1300.
Airwing (pure “sea-control” ops): up to +/- 9/15 F-35 and 6/9 helico.
Airwing (multi-purpose ops): usually +/- around 6/9 F-35 and 12/18 helico.
Cargos capacity: up to 46 heavy tanks, many vehicles & others cargos.
Landing crafts: 4 LCM or 1 or 2 LCT or LCAC
Cost per ship: +/- 500 $ million
Airwing cost per ship: +/- 1 $ billion max (transport helico no included, because already used by army).Large LHD = more cheaper, more cheaper to operate, more flexible, more versatile than a STVOL carrier (not really the same case for a CATOBAR carrier….)
Mike
But we don’t need LHD’s, we already have the dock landing ships and we currently have Ocean.
As our primary lift helo is the Chinook and they are not Navalised they therefore are deck cargo or deadspace in the hanger until they reach their restination. CVF has been designed to accomodate Chinook in both the Hanger and Lifts without folded blades and the flight deck size means they don’t interfer with flight deck ops.
Plus how do your exert control of the airspace with just 9 -15 F-35s and what do you use for your Helicopters if the LHD is operating in carrier role.
Would you replace PA2 with a Mistral ? as thats what your effectivly suggesting.
The LHD is a jack of all trades but master of none, it can do a variety of roles but not as well as a dedicated ship, but as we already have the dedicated assault ships, it was the aircover and strike roles that we needed to replace and we know the smaller ships are just not upto the task.
Plus you not taking into account the cost of cancelling the CVF, scrapping whats been built, developing a new requirement to determine what we need and what it should do, designing said ships be it from scratch or adapting an existing design and then building them. In the meantime the current CVS & harriers will have to soldier on until their new replacements are ready.
Geoff_BI’m pretty sure there was. It was called the X-35B. A lot better than a Flying Bedstead/Futon! It had wings and other stuff as well!;):D:diablo:
Yeap the X-35B proved the concept to with the JSF competition. With hindsight i suppose they should have really looked at then using the X-35B’s to develop the F-35B STOVL flight evelope. Although the F-35B is a different aircraft the basics would be the same and issues like the heat footprint, parts reliability and tolerances could have been determined earlier. Too late now….:mad:
Sign In
