sealordlawrence[QUOTE=Jonesy;1231661]Lawrence,
So, all a country need do is buy two dozen Flankers and a hundred air-launched Yakhonts or Clubs and it has a ‘competent antiship missile capability‘. You honestly believe that?. There wouldnt be any need for maritime patrol assets or an improved C3 infrastructure to support the capability perhaps?. OK!.
That is not what I said.
Listen, its obvious you are not reading what I am writing so, If we’re getting near a point where the dummy is going to get spat out the cot, I’m just as happy to leave this one alone. I’ve made all the points I need to and I’ve gone to pains this time to patiently explain the difference between the general STOVL vs CATOBAR argument, which we are NOT having, and the relevency of STOVL to UK Carrier Strike.
I am reading every word you say and systematically refuting all of it.
If you are not interested in having that requirement explained to you i.e why we do not consider STOVL to be an overriding deficiency considering the benefits of the aircraft to the way we deploy forces then, again, there is no point in this.
With all due respect you have tried and failed on multiple occasions. The reliance upon absurdly constrained threat scenarios does not provide a useful doctrinal base for STOLV.
Its got to the point where all you are saying it that the F-35B is inferior because its range and payload are inferior. If you, honestly, think that that is the end of the issue and its done and dusted, and wont be shaken off that, then, frankly, I dont think I’m the one to teach you otherwise.
That is precisely the issue and it has yet to be explained in operational terms (rather than the still unsubstantiated financial terms) why it should not be the issue.
It was interesting while it lasted.
Indeed it was and was I can only hope we both leave without animosity.;)
sealordlawrenceNo I’m not avoiding anything Lawrence. You stated that Venezuela simply purchasing a couple of dozen Flankers and whatever antiship missile they wish to hang on them that happens to be fashionable gives them a competent antiship capability. It most certainly does not. It gives them the shooting end of that capability only – which is about 30% of the whole antiship job.
Yes you are, whatever country you wish can with relative ease achieve a competant ASh capability.
But that IS what ASaC7 will be doing in direct support of the F-35B fleet air defence mission. Plus it will support F-35B strike missions in low-intensity warfare as it has done in Afghanistan
Is it? You are still working on that absurdly constrained threat scenario.
Sea Harrier FA2 from a CVS was able, on one exercise with a flotilla of Norweigian FAC(M)’s, to launch an airstrike while the boat was at dead stop lurking in a fjord where none of the opfor expected a carrier to be. It caused total operational suprise and got the FAC(M) flotilla killed in minutes.
And?
HMS Glamorgan, back in the early 80’s, was leading a small SAG comprised of Leander class frigates in the Arabian Gulf. She was tasked by the USS Coral Sea to conduct an exercise surface attack against the carrier battlegroup. Glamorgan was challenged by the E-2 providing the surface plot, came up with some dog-and-pony act that she was an Indian passenger ferry, and got inside the US screen to within GWS50/MM38 range of the CV. She ‘fired’ four missiles at the carrier.
And?
You tell me, in those instances, which type of carrier had the ‘strategic and tactical flexibility’.
Please dont make me explain friction to you.
Like I said – there are other ways to do the job. All you are talking about realisticaly is a radius advantage of 150nm and a loiter advantage of what 15-20 minutes maximum…and that cut into because the 35C will be obliged to carry a higher proportion of reserve fuel.
The B still takes a range and loiter time cut which ever way you try and argue it.
You are still talking about sending manned fighters on a mission that puts them the better part of 3hrs inside enemy airspace,
Ridiculous comment, at best it means that you are putting your plane 3hrs from the carrier.
which is still hostile if we are on internal-stores only (otherwise the payload bay limitation is meaningless)
,
Again a ridiculous comment, you seem to be suggesting that the by hanging external stores of a B you can somehow make up for its deficiencies over the C. You can not, the B is an inferior aircraft.
to engage a target we can hit with TLAM. If we need to stage 600nm inland into the interior of a landlocked country only a damned idiot would use an aircraft carrier anyway!. Build a FOB ashore and use the F-35B austere basing capability.
Yeah great idea, put your very expensive new toys in theater in a COIN environment. I like the way you call the entire USN idiots, nice. Again actual examples are the First Gulf War and Afghanistan.
Oh come on Lawrence you are pushing the point now dont you think?. ask yourself this – which can the RN buy more easily 50 TLAM or 50 F-35C?.
Wrong question, which can the RN buy more easily, 2000lb JDAM or TLAM?
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=Jonesy;1231338]
Likewise I know what you are saying Scooter and I can ‘hear’ the incredulity in yours and Lawrences posts that someone could have the temerity to suggest STOVL could be better than CATOBAR. I need you to understand that I am NOT saying that in general terms. I am saying that, for what we see the CVF doing at least initially, STOVL is no disadvantage and is a hell of a lot more practical and affordable.
Because the only benefit is cost and that has yet to be substantiated. There is no operational advantage to the B.
Yes, as I’ve agreed with Lawrence, F-35B is shorter in range than F-35C. 150nm isnt a huge handicap though. If range was so critical in naval ops why didnt the USN look harder at the A-6F/G even after A-12 fell on its stern. Answer: because there are other ways to do the job. Range is not the be all and end all of naval aviation.
That is a twist of history, the F was cancelled in favor of the A-12, only the much simpler G was offered after the A-12’s demise and with the ongoing reduction n carrier airwing size a simple and singl roled aircraft was not practical at the time. Take a look at the USN’s range requirement for C to see how serious they are about range.
I could be wrong here but isnt that ‘luxury’ currently being undertaken by F-18E’s with buddy packs on US carriers at present?. I read a statistic somewhere that of 600+ operational Super Hornet missions 200ish were buddy-tankers!. We could never afford to use up our airgroup airframe cat/trap lives doing that sort of thing anyway!. We’d waste a third of our fleet without them dropping a bomb!. The admiralty would bring back keelhauling for that!!!. 🙂
I thought you said that the USN is not that interested in range? All the more reason to have the aircraft with more fuel in the first place. Yet another towering justification of the range argument.
…and I’m afraid they’d all be dead wrong!. As I said everything about the CVF/PA2 is being developed to minimise complexity and manpower requirements. Thats from the IEP engine fit, through to automated ordnance handling, through to advanced mission planning systems to minimise ops room staff. Everything that can be done to maximise operational efficiency has been done deliberately. Like I said the crew complement tells the story – CVN needs 5000 hands to work it – CVF needs 1600. A much simpler vessel.
And that seperates CVF from every other warship being designed/built in the west now how exactly?
sealordlawrenceNot so, in fact, you are assuming that I made that assumption!. The Venezualan purchase of Flankers shows that the Venezuelans know jack about attacking ships – nothing else. Having a few dozen yakhonts and half a dozen fighters that could actually be tasked to deploy them out of a countries premier air-defence squadrons does not make for a ‘competent’ capability. The Argentine Armada’s Super Etendards demonstrated this perfectly in the Falklands. Their targets were the British carriers – the Royal Navy had hardkill defences capable against AM39 on only two ships in the group – yet they hit one picket destroyer and a merchie from 5 shots. NOT a great performance!.
You are deliberately avoiding the point of the example, the venezuelan example demonstrates the speed and ease with which such a capability can be procured and it does make for a competant capability.
ASaC7 is good enough to tag a missile-laden, decidely subsonic, striker at sufficient range to vector in an F35 CAP or queue the DLI aircraft. Remember ASaC will not be hovering over the carrier!. I’d expect ASaC7 to work extensively with F35.
That was not the example I was asking for, will the ASaC7 be able to fully support F-35?
Again though Lawrence you are now talking about novel and different tactics that may or may not be developed. The RN and RAF may be able to leverage STOVL into providing effective tactics unique to the F35B. Certainly the RN have been able to do this with Sea Harrier in several exercises over the years with telling effect. The door swings both ways.
No I am talking about tactical and strategic flexibility.
Is that what you really think?. CVF is a programme initiated 10 years ago to examine a replacement capability for the CVS’s. Its requirements were set out in the 98 SDR to be a platform capable of supporting UK forces engaged in expeditionary warfare. Note that is distinctly seperate from a replacement CVS capability which would have generated the 30k ton CVS hull you mention.
Yes it is, the reason being that it is true. There is no threat to the United Kingdom, CVF exists to provide an expeditionary capability that is entirely optional.
The operational advantage of additonal payload range is indisputable I agree. That advantage is not employable in every circumstance though. For a greater proportion of missions flying out 600nm to drop a 2000lb weapon is not going to be called for due to the reasons given earlier – there are other ways to do the job!.
You have not given any reasons at all. You have just said it wont, well why wont it. The fact is that the usefulness of range is already demonstrated, not to mention loiter capability and the reduced payload.
Or if you really have to stretch that far you forget the 3hr trip in the manned fighters plus tanking support etc, etc and you shoot a few TLAM’s!.
Which are notoriously short in number for the RN.
As stated above to Scooter…..easy for the French…..not us!.[/QUOTE]
sealordlawrenceNot to jump into the battle but I think I need to bring up a couple of points about the Hornet in the Gulf War. First while the Hornet is shorter ranged than the F-35B Lightning. In the Gulf War USN Carriers could provide Carrier Based Tanker Support that a STOVL Carrier could not! Also, lets not forget that much of the Tanker support that was provided came from nearby landbased tankers of the USAF, RAF, and French Air Force.
Precisely, and I suspect that is one of the reasons the USN put such a high demand on range for its JSF variant.
sealordlawrenceLawrence,
You see the difference in capability as ‘significant’. Given every logical and objective look at the global threat scenario I cannot see why that is the case. Guess we leave it there.
I most certainly do.
I understand your point about peer-rivals not being necessary for conflict, however, without being flippant, in the examples you cite the question must be raised as to why CVF would be in any way inadequate?.
In the Falklands example a new Galtieri would take one look at the CVF and think twice. ASaC7 means no under-the-radar suprises from Etendards and nothing in his airforce compares to the F-35/AIM-120 combination from the kickoff. Now you can start bringing in new and different weapons for the opposition, but, the short aspect is any realistic-sized force you put in Argentine hands with any conventional antiship capability is not going to get through ASaC7/F-35B+AMRAAM/T-45/Astute.
Makes the broad and flawed assumption that such states stand still. The Venezuelan procurement of flankers shows just how quickly (and relatively cheaply) competant AShM forces could be procured. Given the capabilities of the F-35 I would be interested to know exactly how much use it is going to get from the ASaC7? New procurement aside the significance of the Iraq example is not weapons based but tactics based, the ability to take advantage of additional capability to further complicate an opponents threat scenario.
As for the GW1 example, again I apologise for the flippancy, but the USN fought that action with fighters with a bit shorter combat radius (as i understand it) than F-35B in the form of C model Hornets?. If that was achievable then whats the issue now?.
And this leads me to the point that I have been trying to make all along, the CVF is optional, it only really exists to fulfill the ideological and egotistical motives of a now departed prime minister. Sure the RN could simply take a warmed over Invincible and it would continue to function as a navy without any risk to UK national security, indeed it could cope without carriers. Such things will always be achievable but the operational advantage of increased payload/endurance is indisputable. Again how do you quantify this, you have the B and you need more tankers and/or more sorties but if you have the C you have a more expensive to run combination on its own. Theoretically you could do such a mission with harriers if you kept plugging them into tankers.
The reason this is such an issue is that the French are building a carrier based on the same design with catapults and the C variant is available thus making CTOL a relatively easy option.
sealordlawrenceTrue there are no reliable figures, but we do know the magnitude of the work that goes into catobar which are factors CVF and the RN will not have to deal with:
1, The purchase, operation and maintenance of an aux steam plant. Remember this will have to be fired off the vessels dieso bunkers, reducing endurance as compared to STOVL CVF, and the plant will have to be kept at full operations output 24/7.
Can picture the scene as Wings has to try to explain to the captain that he’s sorry but no aircraft can be launched as the boilers haven’t got sufficient head up yet – as the Sukhois come barrelling in!. Remember this IS NOT like the cat ops on a US CVN – they have plenty of steam budget at all times thanks to the kettles back aft – CVF/PA2 are going to be vastly different animals.
2, US CVN’s have over 200 personnel embarked solely to look after 4 catapults and the arresting system. On a CVF that would be nearly 1 in 7 of the crew solely being there for the catobar system. PA2’s crew requirement for their cat/trap systems will be a bit smaller than the US vessels, but, the manpower saved through the reduced numbers of cats will be made up by having to have engineers to look after the aux steam plant.
3, Arresting cables have a 100-trap lifespan and there are at least three aboard. Once their lifespan is used the cable is over the side. This is only one of the recurring costs that the system has, valves, piston rings, shims etc, etc all work under a high-pressure steam load and must be monitored and tested on a regular basis.
4. Only tenuosly related but following on from the above point – CATOBAR imposes a lifespan restriction on airframes that is simply not there with STOVL. How many Hornets now sit at AMARC because they’ve run through their airframe cat/trap cycle limit?. Fine for the USN to do this, they surely have enough airframes to dispose of them as they see fit, if we’re only starting with 150 it might be a bit more of an issue to us!.
Is the RN accepting a lesser capable carrier than it might otherwise be able to get?.
The answer there is that there was never a guarantee of getting a CATOBAR carrier in the first place so, no, this ship is the best the RN have been told they can have.
Is a catobar carrier a better multirole platform?. Undoubtedly yes. The PA2 will do all of the jobs CVF will do nearly as well. The same cannot be said the other way around. PA2 will be the far superior sea control platform and will be much better at cross-decking USN aircraft! :).
This leads us to your point about whether we can predict what CVF will be doing for its first 15 years of service. I can tell you one thing it wont be doing and that is re-fighting the Battle of Midway or fighting Tom Clancy’s Backfire Regiments in the Atlantic. That is simply because the forces are not in existence and will not be in existence for either to be conceivable. That may sound daft to state, but, look around. Russia, as everyone has recently agreed, is not about to kick off AirLand ’85. It hasnt the forces nor the necessity to engage in hostilities where a large conventional fight ensues. Nowhere else in the world will a blue water force, sufficient to threaten a CVF taskgroup, be a practical reality before 2030.
Those are very simple analyses of the state the world is in today in strategic terms. A multirole carrier, therefore, may be a nice thing to have but if it only ever does the same job as CVF – standing off whilst launching strikes ashore in support of ground forces. Is the RN accepting a lesser carrier or just a more efficient one?.
The simple fact is that the RN is taking a significantly less capable option but at an as yet unquantified but probably reduced cost. The argument is a subjective one but there are (IMO) zero operational advantages to STOLV for carriers the size of CVF.
I never said anything about a large scale conventional threat. Both the Falklands and the first Gulf War showed in glaring terms the advantages of range for carrier based aircraft and in neither case did the attacking carriers face a peer rival type force. The ridiculously constrained threat scenario that has been created here (basically Afghanistan) is just that, ridiculously constrained. The notion that all the CVF’s will ever do is sit of a coast somewhere and launch aircraft to attack illiterate extremists armed with nothing more than AK’s that they can not even aim is frankly absurd. A cursory glance back over the last 25-26 years produces three conflicts in which the UK has been involved that have been against reasonably viable (but not peer rival) forces.
sealordlawrenceI don’t see any proposed AEW Osprey as being as capable as the Hawkeye. That said, if you can’t operate conventional aircraft. It would clearly be superior to any helo based type.
As for keeping a Invincible Class Carrier in a LHA Role. It has many merits…..Yet, the RN will be lucky just to fund the two CVF’s and its Airwings! That said, I love the idea!:D Especially, with a mixed Airwing of WAH-64’s and F-35B’s……..talk about close air supoort for the Troops!:D 😀 😀
Just thinking about the latter. I think the best way to go would be a cheap conversion of a Container Ship! They could even be maintained in reserve or like the forward deployed pre-position ships of USN. So, in times of crisis the would just join up with aircraft and men to regional hot spots.
Have you tried flying a Hawkeye of an amphibious ship.;)
sealordlawrenceI don’t know if I agree with that one? As I think Super Hornets, Rafales, and Lightnings make for expensive tankers! Remember, its not like the USN or the French Navy are going to order extra fighters to service as tankers. Which, just means less aircraft will be available for any strike mission! As a matter of fact I think the USN is stupid (i.e. with all do respect) to retire the Viking Fleet early. As they provided vauable service in the Tanker Role amoung others!
It is a difficult one, but the approach I take is that during any surge you can max out your on-board strike airframes and you dont have to operate yet another type, equally though you have a point. In the case of the USN, with the Greyhound and Hawkeye fleet in place (and allot of spare space on the CVN’s) you could make a strong argument for having the Greyhound adapted as a tanker.
sealordlawrenceI think I would have to agree. While the F-35B would be very helpful with its high sortie rates supporting troops going ashore. That role would be better served by F-35B’s operating from LHA’s and/or LHD’s than a Super Carrier. This is exactly how the USN/USMC will uses its Lightning Fleet. With F-35C’s operating from Nimitz Class Carriers and F-35B’s operating from Amphibious Ships.:diablo:
Maybe a mixed buy of F-35B/C’s has some merits afterall? Just let the RN operate the F-35C’s from the CVF’s! With the RAF operating F-35B’s from Amphibious Ships supporting the troops going ashore. Which, is the same role both services had before the Joint Harrier Force was established………:o
For the US I think the B is one of the most important projects in the DoD at the moment. In fact I really feel that the AEW osprey should be procured for the same reason. Such a combination would give the USN the ability to temporarily surge to 20+ attack carriers without too much difficulty, a truly awesome capability and one that would assure continued US naval hegemony for a very long time indeed!
As for the RN, never forget the ability to operate the excellent WAH-64 from HMS Ocean (and any future LPH, I kind of hope that an invicible will be retained after the CVF’s enter service to supplement Ocean and that a replacement will be sought for both ships over a longer term basis) which should be capable of providing a very formidable CAS capability in the bear shore area.
sealordlawrenceWhatever R-77 variant they want to stick in the weapons bay won’t have any bearing on the aerodynamic testing of a prototype, will it?
Thats one of the things that is really intriguing me, I am just waiting for some sexy new Russian AAM’s for the Pakfas bays!:diablo:
They aren’t the same person, I checked.
Thanks, they just seemed a bit odd, thats all.;)
sealordlawrenceA very good point!😀 Also, the lack of catapults limits any Carrier Based Tanker Support 🙁
I dont know what the feasibility on the F-35 is but I am a massive fan of buddy-buddy refueling for carrier aircraft, that way you can max out on strike aircraft and have a tanking capability. Thats one of the many reasons why I admire the Rafale.
sealordlawrenceIs that a capability worth installing a complex steam plant and all the hundreds of miles of plumbing to drive catapults?. You ask me if the target is that far away use a TLAM it’ll get there just as quick!.
And that is the crux of it. We just dont have reliable figures to compare CVF and PA-2. However I maintain absolutely that the UK is taking the less capable option.
Be very careful about trying to predict what the CVF’s are going to spend the early part of their lives doing, remember that they are still nearly a decade from entering service and we have no idea what UK foreign policy will be like by then.
I should point out that my support for the C over the B comes from a much wider perspective than just wanting a more capable aircraft. I am a massive Navy supporter and I whole heartedly believe that the RN is central to UK security policy. Both for power projection where (despite the rantings of the RAF- an organisation that has yet to actually explain its reason for existing) there is no beating a powerful naval force and for self defence. The UK is the most globalised country in the world and its reliance upon the sea is epic. Essentially what I am saying is that the UK should increase its focus on its naval forces.
sealordlawrenceMy thanks for the correction djcross – I had, naturally, meant radius!. 150nm meaning very little to a service that does not possess the organic ISTAR to detect a short-interval target at that radius anyhow and one unlikely to send manned fighters to the extent of their 600nm radius to stooge around on cab-rank CAS in the first place – simply because we wont have all that many to start with!.
There are long interval targets as well.
If it comes to the carrier being 600nm away, presumably about an hours flying time, from where the ground troops need to be supported there’s probably a good call to move the carrier up a bit!. If it cant get any closer you’d wonder what the Army has been doing if its managed to get 600nm inland without capturing a single hard surface strip that could be used as a FOB!.
There are multiple examples of extended ranges being put to good use. Both in the Falklands and in the first Gulf War carriers were kept back from the coast in order to keep them out of AShM range. In GW1 carriers based in the med launched aircraft through Syria and Turkey (IIRC) to complicate the Iraqi air defence problem. Thus range in both cases was/would have been a massive enabler. The RAF/RN have a habit of bombing such strips in order to prevent non airworthy migs from taking off, that makes their later use somewhat difficult. A major lesson from Afghanistan has been the vulnerability of in theater air assets to very basic intelligence. A guy on a motorbike will watch a helo take off and radio his buddys in action, with only a limited amount of experience a rough flight time can be established and the target moved before the strike aircraft arrives. I dont have an example of this happening with fixed wing assets but it is far from inconceivable.
sealordlawrenceWhy indeed build the “A” Model at all! Clearly, Air Forces from around the world have used naval types from landbases. With such examples as the F-4 Phantom, F/A-18 Hornet, and soon the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Further, in the case of the F-35C. It would carry a heavier warload at longer ranges!
As for the F-35C in RN Service. That’s a tuff one………..the F-35B maybe more expenisve. Yet, it doesn’t require catapults nor arresting gear and provides higher sortie rates. On the otherhand the F-35C has better range and heavier payloads. Personally, I think the the RN plans on using there CVF’s closer to littorals than USN Carriers? If, that is correct the F-35B would have to be the better choice…………….
The surge argument is a self defeating one. The B will have greater need to surge due to its reduced payload and the additional fuel carried by the C will enable it to loiter to allow for any required surge and almost certainly still have greater range than the B.
Sign In
