sealordlawrenceAs much as it pains me to type it, I am in agreement with flex297. The more I read about the Pakfa and the ‘new’ Su-35 the more I am impressed by them and I do not think it inconceivable that the Pakfa will be an F-35 beater. As to whether it will be a Raptor beater has yet to be seen, however I think the technology is there for Russia to pull this off as long as it does it right.
sealordlawrenceWell, even the US has used CVN’s in a LHA role as they did in Afghanistan. That said, considering the Invincible Class can only operate STOVL aircraft. What other role could it perform in a secondary mission? Further, if the CVF’s are going to be used in a LHA Role. (aka USMC) I guess during any major conflict. They will be close to shore with the other LHA/LHD and leave the heavy hitting to the American and French Super Carriers?
I think the idea is that they avoid using them in the LPH role as far as possible and therefore stick to the Ocean and Ark. Are there any specific features that the CVF’s are going to get for the Amphib role? As I have said though- still no reason for them not to be CTOL.
sealordlawrenceNo, that isn’t what you said. You said, & I will quote it yet again –
Rather sad, that you actually seem to believe that anyone visiting this forum is stupid enough to fall for your ridiculous assertion that when you said black, you meant white. All you do is show yourself up. If you’d said something alone the lines of “I see now that I was mistaken”, & moved on, nobody would think worse of you for it.
Ah well, enough time-wasting.
Get over it, You misinterpreted what I meant and I probably did not properly express what I meant, its called a misunderstanding. Now your getting all wound up and aggressive. Maybe you would like to continue the discussion in a civilized manner now? Frankly swerve you look a like a rather unbalanced individual with this little outburst.
Anyway, As attack carriers the Invincible’s are used in a very similar way to the US CVN’s. Even the requirement for the CVF’s to have a secondary (certainly not equal) LPH role should in no way effect the V/STOL / CTOL decision. IIRC the CdG has a similar secondary amphibious role too-ie its intended to operate as a combination ship if required, however with the introduction of the 2 new LPH’s it probably wont be. Hopefully the same will be the case for an RN with Ark Royal, Ocean and 2 CVF’s.
sealordlawrenceNo explanation necessary, because you’re still talking nonsense, as well as directly contradicting what you previously said, that “As for UK carriers having a different role to those of the USN, I have never seen any evidence for that.”. BTW, why did you say that?
Invincibles were being used in the LPH role long before the Ark was modified, e.g. Illustrious in 2001-2. The Ark has not been turned into an LPH, she’s been turned into a swing-role ship. We have no carriers functioning as such at the moment, not two: Invincible was decommissioned in 2005, & is in long-term reserve, unlikely ever to sail under RN colours again, & neither of the others currently has any Harriers embarked. In effect, we have 3 LPHs & no CVs at present.
And I’ve never said otherwise. What I said is what you now implicitly admit (for the second time), that you were wrong to state that the Invincibles are not used in a different role from US CVNs.
Get over this pathetic point scoring thing you have going, its bad for your health.:D
As I said, in their Attack Carrier format they are used exactly as the USN CVN’s are. Your ego might wish for me to have meant something different and maybe I didnt express myself as well as I could have done but that is what I meant.;)
sealordlawrenceIndeed.
The bird looks very capable…. and I was about to say it has distinct echoes of the Valkyrie when I actually saw this mentioned in the text..!
Same engine and same design company.;) I have always thought that if it had been flown procured and equipped with the AGM-76 it would have made a very nice if very expensive SEAD aircraft. Personally I always preferred the F-108 to the F-12, but that has more to do with looks than capabilities.:)
sealordlawrenceBecause you disagree with whatever I say, even when you’re aware that what you’re saying is factually incorrect? e.g. the bit about the Invincibles being used in the same way as USN CVNs. The fact that the navy has often given priority to operating one as an LPH shows that this is not the case. They are used as swing-role ships, LPH or carrier depending on the priority of the moment. You’ve just admitted that you know that, & offered an explanation, apparently forgetting that it invalidates what you’d previously said –
If it’s a character flaw to be irritated by the second of those two not being accompanied by any admission of error in the first, then I’m guilty as charged. But you’d have to have a pretty odd view of humanity to think that a flaw. More like evidence of normality.
Allow me too explain this to you again, one Invincible has been modified as a LPH due to the previous imbalance in the flat top fleet (1 LPH and three CV’s). It is no coincidence that the modified vessel is the youngest of the trio. This still leaves two attack carriers and two LPH’s.
In their attack carrier role (which by your own admission two of them still are) the Invincible’s and the CVF’s perform exactly the same role as the US CVN’s. There is nothing incorrect about that. The obvious intention is for two LPH’s and two attack carriers.
Frankly this all makes little different anyway as there is no reason why a CTOL carrier can not have exactly the same swing role capability as a V/STOL carrier.
sealordlawrenceSeeing as this is a news thread, I have just read in this weeks issue of the Economist that a Federal Judge is Los Angeles has issued an injunction preventing the USN from using high power sonar in the waters of southern california as it apparently damages marine life.
sealordlawrenceI would just like to thank everybody who has thus far taken part in this thread, everybody has raised some very interesting points and provided allot of excellent information, so thank you all very much!
sealordlawrenceAh. So that’s why one of them routinely operates as an LPH, & Ark Royal was modified in her last refit (at a cost of quite a few million quid) to make her a better LPH, while retaining her STOVL capacity. Now it makes sense to me: it’s all part of making her more like a US CVN! If only I’d realised that before. :diablo:
Give up, mate. That hole you’re in is getting pretty deep.
No, one operates as an LPH becouse of a shortage of that type in the RN. Indeed everything I have heard suggests that the reason Ark Royal (remember she is the youngest ship in the class having commissioned some 4 years after the other two) was thus modified was to provide a second LPH even after the CVF’s are inducted. In the mean time it still provides the RN with two available carriers even when they have two ships operating as LPH’s. Ultimately the plan is to procure a second pure LPH after the CVF’s are inducted to replace the one remaining Invincible (Ark Royal) and supplement Ocean. Therefore the fleet will take on a structure not that indifferent from the french with two Attack carriers and two LPH’s. Even if there is a requirement for the CVF’s to function as LPH’s there is still no reason why they can not be CTOL vessels. And yes I have read the Navy Matters section on the LPH(R) so I know that a secondary commando role is required of the CVF’s and that the LPH(R) is on hold. However it has been indicated to me that the LPH(R) program was put on hold secure the CVF’s and other more immediate projects. In their attack carrier form (ie: loaded with Harriers and AEW Sea Kings) they are the classic incarnation of the type and exactly in line with not just the USN CVN’s but also the CdG.
I dont quite know why you seem to regard this as adversarial but it does rather suggest a character flaw on your part.
sealordlawrenceSurely the RAF’s requirement for the B would have made an RN selection of the C variant difficult? Besides the cost savings of a single buy of one airframe, both selecting the B would make combined ops easier.
The RAF is on a very good number, the creation of Joint Force Harrier has effectively resulted in the RN’s fixed wing aircraft being permanently donated to the RAF- that is situation the RAF would very much like to maintain. In reality the RAF has very little operational requirement for V/STOL aircraft. I can see the small potential logic of having a small number of B’s to operate from the LPH(R), if they end up being dig enough to do so, in an emergency.
sealordlawrenceOne of the reasons (there will be others) for sending officers to US CVNs is that the RN is taking out insurance against a cancellation of F-35B, either by the USA, or by the UK government (the technology issue could still blow up). That’s also one of the reasons for building the ships “for but not with” catapults & arresting gear. The RN wants informed opinion from within its own ranks on modern CTOL carrier operations, & since RN officers speak English better than French, the USN is the obvious place to go for it.
As for your constant re-iteration of the disadvantages of STOVL: we know all that! Nobody disagrees. You’re arguing with the air. The question is the weight the Royal Navy (not me, not you) gives to those disadvantages, compared to the weight it gives to the advantages.
BTW, my preferred configuration, given that the RN has committed to STOVL (on that I’m like Turbinia, neither 100% for nor 100% against), would be for a waist catapult & a purchase of E-2, enabling sharing of maintenance & training facilities with France & cross-decking of Rafale, F-18E etc.
As I have already stated I dont buy this ‘the navy wants it’ argument. The whole thing seems like an industrial and political solution to appease RR. As for UK carriers having a different role to those of the USN, I have never seen any evidence for that. The Invincible’s have evolved into full on attack carriers that fulfill a role not too dissimilar to that of the US CVN’s just on a smaller scale.
sealordlawrenceExcellent, the US is really pushing the boundry’s with UCAV’s and they look set to revolutionise the way wars are fought!:eek:
sealordlawrenceSuper Hornet pilots may have something to say about that……..:diablo:
Yeah probably, ‘good point!’:D
sealordlawrenceSounds like this could be a ploy to just get India to fork over more money! Regardless, I’d be surprised if it is delivered on schedule? Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the project is delayed yet again after the MMRCA contract is awarded…………;)
Still a mess anyway you look at it!:eek:
I was wondering that, how much does this have to do with the MMRCA?;)
sealordlawrenceI tend to agree with Swerve on this one, the RN may be right in wanting STOVL, or they may be wrong, but they do have a reason for it and it’s been well argued. Cost is always a consideration in any military program but in the case of the CVF the costs are fairly small either way and it may well work out that if the cost of the F35B is included then the STOVL CVF may well be more expensive than a Rafale-M or F18E CTOL CVF. I’m not saying I agree 100% with the choice, but equally I’m not 100% against it either, my reservation is about the AEW capability, but if the V22 is suitable for a AEW platform then it could well be an excellent alternative to the E2, maybe not as good as an E2 but then again VTOL capability is a genuine asset too. On the primary function of a F35B strike wing with a ski jump flight deck I’m pretty happy with the configuration. Ultimately, the question does return to the ships intended mission profile and operating philosophy, to argue about the flight deck configuration and aircraft choice without linking it to what the RN actually want from these ships is to ignore the principle factor in the whole decision process IMO.
What is too often forgotten is the reduction in capability that the B version suffers compared to the C, both range and internal weapons load suffer significantly. I also dont buy the ‘RN wants V/STOL’ argument, everybody I have spoken too (admittedly not as many as I would like) suggest the opposite. The conception of the CVF’s IMO is actually quite close to the US CVN’s- global power projection. The V/STOL choice limits that power. The F-35B makes perfect sense for the US amphib ships but not for 74,000 ton super carriers.
Sign In
