nocutstoRAFSaw this in another thread but I thought it might be interesting here. I suspect the author of the article is wrong, but it also might be that he has some inside track:
A model of the Queen Elizabeth carriers at the Thales display still showed the ski-jump configuration to launch its aircraft. But the decision last week by the British to switch to the F-35C conventional Joint Strike Fighter rather than buy the F-35B jump jet version means those ships now will use conventional steam catapults.
Where those catapults would come from is a source of speculation, as the U.S. Navy plans to equip all future aircraft carriers with an electro-magnetic launch system still under development. The French Navy reportedly signed a $67.5 million deal in May to purchase two new C13 catapults from the U.S. Navy, but those catapults reportedly have not been delivered, and the order may have been put on hold.
take from: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4969353&c=AME&s=SEA, third and second paragraph from the bottom of the article.
nocutstoRAFConfirmed in the SDSR UK will switch from F-35B to F-35C.
EDIT:
The key text from page 23 is:
The strike needs to be made more capable. Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. This version of the jet has a longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement for precision strike operations in the future. The UK plans to operate a single model of JSF, instead of different land and naval variants. Overall, the carrier-variant of the JSF will be cheaper, reducing through-life costs by around 25%.
nocutstoRAFThere is a story in the Daily Record (in one of the news threads) that two US P-3’s are operating out Kinloss (confirmed on PPRUNE in the Nimrod thread as someone based at Kinloss has been mentioning it) hunting a Russian submarine.
This makes the decision to cancel the Nimrods even more bizarre as we now having to rely on the US to provide what can be easily argued as part of our core defence requirements.
nocutstoRAFSurely though the original plan called for only operating one carrier most of the time, switching between the two to make sure we have all year round availability? Also logically, due to the length of time you want to keep the carriers in service for, and the demands that operating two carrier groups plus amphibious force would make on RFA, it would make sense to only operate both in either a major exercise or if we were at war.
nocutstoRAFAccording to this poster over on ARRSE the answer is no Argentina cannot take the Falkland Islands – simply cannot bring enough force to bear, as a Navy man the poster is mostly focused on amphibious assault against the garrison:
I presume if the UK was really getting worried about the Falklands it could simply buy Patriot to give it a longer ranged SAM to complement the Rapier batteries.
nocutstoRAFI don’t know enough to comment on the ease of transition, but it’s certainly true that S-3B is available very cheaply. As I understand it, the USA has offered them to some Latin American countries gratis, if they bought some associated services.
The stored airframes have lots of life left, & there are reported to be big stocks of spares, including engine spares (also available very cheap, as the US is currently paying to store them), but they’d need a thorough overhaul, & some of the electronics probably need replacement.
Thanks Swerve. I know Jonesy mentioned previously that they were a possible MASC platform if we went CATOBAR. I have no idea if there would be any funds to SLEP them or to base them but seems like a possibility (just I suspect not very likely)
I also know that the SDSR mentions Maritime ISTAR assets but until I hear otherwise I am inclined to think they mean Merlin MASC and F-35C’s with UAV’s.
EDIT: Just to mention as I think I have likely confused the situation, I was wonder on the feasibility of in the short term using SLEPed S-3B’s as rather short legged ASW platform to cover the CASD as well as over-sea surveillance and top cover for SAR and in the long run use them as MASC platform on the carriers.
EDIT 2: I know no-one will likely re-read this post but I realise it still does not make sense to anyone who reads it – I was wonder how feasible it is that maritime patrol be transferred to the FAA, and that FAA retains skills for fixed wing flying by buying cheap S-3B’s, SLEPing them, to deploy a squadron to provide maritime patrol (likely with RAF help in the short term to fill the two other seats) using Harrier pilots from 800 NAS and then buy a second squadron to stand up to provide S-3B’s as MASC platforms on the carriers. I appreciate this means a new base, capital outlay and running costs all of which are likely to make the idea unworkable unless they killed MRA4 simply because it still needed tens of millions investing in it to become operational.
nocutstoRAFNot sure which of the threads it was best to ask, so I am asking here.
MRA4 is gone, Harriers are gone, how easy would it be for the existing Harrier crews to transition to SLEPed S-3B’s, on which apparently we could pick up for a song (said by Jonesy previously, and repeated on PPRUNE), thereby solving the dilemma of a) how to provide some of the key capabilities of the MRA4 to protect our CASD and b) keep the skills of the pilots 800 NAS fresh in the 10 year gap between Ark Royal being paid off and QE launching.
I know that in theory there is no money as the SDSR showed yesterday, but I cannot help wonder if MRA4 was cancelled not because what it cost so far, but because the faults on the plane that lead to it grounding recently where so expensive to rectify that SLEPing S-3B’s with 20 years of life is a cheaper option (or whatever else occurs in the near future).
nocutstoRAFOpen to interpretation, but sounds like it to me.
Well that’s embarrassing, I read the page (even referred someone to the same page in another thread) and still missed that point and therefore the context. I had just assumed the sale the carrier bit had been political point scoring to rub it in that the naughty Labour left them with two carriers they did not need (while quietly leaving them pleased that they have both), and I still think France is the only viable “buyer” in the unlikely event we sell one of the carriers.
nocutstoRAFSwerve, personally I did read it (well at least the section on defence) and it only mentioned the possibility of selling, not situation that it might be sold in.
IMO the way the defence section phrased it does sound like there preferred option is add Cat and Traps to QE, then launch PoW and rotate in and out of extended readiness, and I presumed they mention about selling one of the CVF’s as political point scoring rather than a serious policy.
However it also sounds like they are wanting to maintain the capabilities of a LHD and if they decide to get rid of one of the CVFs and they build closer ties with France I do not see that the plan is impossible (swap a CVF for two Mistrals).
nocutstoRAFBut what’s the betting in either the 2015 or 2020 SDSR they decide they want new MPA’s 😡
nocutstoRAFThey will either decommission Ocean in 2018 or sooner, as they are reviewing which is a better helicopter platform – Ocean or Illustrious
nocutstoRAFSaid this in another thread, part of me wonders if they will swap one of the CVF’s with France for two Mistral’s, as the two recent Mistral’s that France commissioned where a package of economic stimulus rather than because France thought they needed four of them.
nocutstoRAFMan, where would bombers going…
Sorry to snip your post but it was just to long to make a point for point response.
As illogical as sounds (and it makes me angry to think that it will likely will occur), but I put money that in the next SDSR they will highlight a need for an MPA and buy a number of used airframes (surplus US P-3’s for example) or an off the shelf solution on the open market if we need something more capable.
After reading the defence section of the SDSR and reading it in conjunction with David Cameron’s speech there is an outside chance that they really do mean to bring forward the C3 requirement and likely delay the T26, and that they will also cut two minesweepers.
I think it is a good sign with regard to LDH that they are reviewing the situation, followed by using QE for three years in that role, before PoW comes on line, as it is means it’s capability they want to keep going. Part of me wonders if they will swap one CVF with France for two Mistrals that France built for economic stimilus rather than defence reasons, and part of me thinks they build a new LHD.
Still it could be worse, if it had been 10% cuts or more we would likely seen both Tornado and Harrier’s retired, the surface fleet ravaged and the entire amphbious capabilities removed.
nocutstoRAFIts 12 for routine operations surging to 36. See page 24 of the SDSR
We will need to operate only one aircraft carrier. We cannot now foresee circumstances in which the UK would require the scale of strike capability previously planned. We are unlikely to face adversaries in large-scale air combat. We are far more likely to engage in precision operations, which may need to overcome sophisticated air defence capabilities. The single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned…
What’s weird is the way they phrase things in the review it is QE that will be retrofitted to CATOBAR and PoW going in extended readiness.
With regard to MRA4 they reckon other maritime assets will replace, not sure how!
nocutstoRAFMy guess is that the Daily Telegraph has taken a bit of pointless down the pub speculation on selling off QE as true, as the reality is that when PoW needs a refit and is out service for months that they will rotate QE back into service just as they planned.
What is more worrying is what are they going do with 2 squadrons of FAA fast jet pilots (Current 800 NAS and the 12 pilots training in the US to stand up 801 NAS)?
Sign In
