JonesyPlane,
so far I have Wasp, Invincible, Cavour, Juan Carlos I, Principe de Asturias, Garibald, Chakri Naruebet and Viraat.
Mistral, Ocean, Dokdo and Hyūga might yet make it as a “could be” category.
Why would you try such a comparison though?. You have at least three quite separate and distinct vessel classes in that list alone?. You are looking at a great deal of work to achieve some very facile conclusions – such as the Cavour is going to be a more capable aircraft carrier than Invincible and Wasp a superior amphib to Principe de Austrias!?.
If you want to do a comparison piece with some real value you have to be specific and only stack like for like against each other. Garibaldi, Principe de Austrias, Invincible etc (the CVS’s!) and then, separately, the amphibs Dokdo, Mistral, Ocean, Wasp etc. Oddly I dont think I’ve ever seen an objective comparison of these new ‘cheap’ LPH-style platforms so, on a personal note, that would be something I would be interested to see you turn your skills towards.
Jonesy…or more properly focus the never-adequate number of available warships in theatre on exactly the types of vessels you list and use the private security firms to stand watch on the bulk carriers, car carriers and merchants with deck cargo’s of T-72’s!.
One answer does not fit all here I’d agree. To say that there is no scope for security teams aboard ship providing security on the basis that the merchies will explode if someone pops off with an RPG-7 isnt exactly telling the whole story is it?!
Jonesycan we get back on topic here or can the Mod please move this thread to the general discussion area?
Ukrainian macro-economics are a significantly different topic than what kit the Air Force will buy to replace it’s current gear.
No need, hopefully if someone can provide an objective answer, they can PM or mail me off-thread so it doesnt draw the discussion into verboten areas.
Other than that I would love to hear how a countries macro-economic (and geo-political) situation could fail to have a massive bearing on a military procurement of this magnitude, but, I guess that would be off topic too!. 🙂
JonesyLike your country does to British Muslims perhaps?
I didn’t think so… because I thought for a moment you were advocating the forced mass expulsion of 30% of the Ukraines population. You know, ethnic cleansing and all that.:rolleyes:
Well we do deport Muslims – British or otherwise (as well as many other groups) that act against the best interests of British society. I would have thought that simple prudence and something practiced fairly universally.
How is it ethnic cleansing to remove a section of the populace that dont want to be a part of that population?. I dont claim any special knowledge of the Kosovo situation, but, I understood that the Kosovan Albanians didn’t want their territory to completely seperate and become a part of another country…as shown, superficially, by the fact that Kosovo isnt Albania today.
That is plainly not the case in the Ukraine as demonstrated by the behaviour of those citizens in the Crimea. If they dont want to be Ukrainian to the point that they are tearing down plaques erected to their own Navy then I put it to you they are hardly the subjugated and downtrodden suffering under their govts jackboot!. All I can do is reiterate that if a seperate ethnic group where attempting to annexe a part of the UK on another nations behalf I would expect an outcry and for it to be definitively stopped.
EDIT: Just to clarify…without wishing to get into a long and drawn out political rant with someone I am just looking for someone with a local view to explain how the 70% of non-ethnic Russian Ukrainians are viewing this issue and how, if it is so universally unpopular, the Ukrainian Govt got the idea of petitioning NATO to join?.
Jonesyanyway they west all confusing people with promice of *NOTHING *and with propaganda failed 90% of people is AGAINST NATO!
Yet it is Ukraine that petitioned NATO to join not the other way around. Curious how powerful that last 10% seem to be!.
Perhaps you could clear something up I dont understand in this situation. 30% of Ukraines population are ethnic Russian and want to split off from the Ukraine to, presumably, form closer ties with Moscow. Why havent the Ukrainian authorities simply pointed them in the direction of Moscow and told them to leave?.
They have clearly renounced any claim to be Ukrainian by their behaviour, displays of mob vandalism at Sevastopol Naval Base etc being next door to treason in my view. If these people claim Russian nationality and want to be Russian, with an offer of reasonable compensation for their land where appropriate, send them to Russia and let them be Russian and be happy!. I live in Reading in the UK and, here, we have a generations established vibrant and thriving Polish community tens of thousands strong….where they to behave in the fashion that these ethnic Russians have done in Sevastopol there would be mass deportations following a huge national outcry. Why is Ukraine tolerating what looks, really, like an attempted Russian annexation of part of its territory?.
JonesyTrident,
You are right that no flying airframe was ever constructed, if that’s what you thought I was saying.
Partially yes – though the deck handling trials is also news to be honest. Any information on how ‘complete’ the mock up was i.e engines, control linkages etc?
That’s all fine, but the problem with Mars-Passat is that it apparently turned out a failure. AFAIK only the Gorshkov ever carried a complete system, the Kuznetsov reportedly had concrete ballast slabs on the antenna mounts instead pending a solution to the problems
Exactly right. Another case of the Blue Circle radar!.
Why install such powerful engines in the first place, if no STOBAR capabilities were required? There would be no good reason to do so (and accept all the issues you mention) then
Why not if you have the engine available. 80’s era Russian electronics tended towards the weighty side and the airframe was going to be anything but dainty. Throw in a good fuel load and crew it may have been the most logical, conservative, solution to fit the most powerful engine readily available. Like I said without clear idea of what the real-world MTOW would have been its impossible to categorically state that the engines were massively overpowered for the airframe demands.
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree then
I can live with that! 😀
JonesyTrident,
Not only is there circumstantial evidence that a STOBAR capability was deliberately planned (power-to-weight ratio, deck trials aboard the Kuznetsov) but a published source for the claim – what’s so hard to believe?
Deck trials of a Yak-44 aboard Kuznetsov?. First I’ve heard that a complete airframe was ever built….when was this trial undertaken and to what purpose?.
The other main reason is that Yak-44 doesnt fit in with the mission. Kuznetsov was fitted with Mars-Passat for a reason. The concept, as I’m sure I dont need to tell you, was for a mobile ‘bastion’ of Soviet naval power operating in the Atlantic in support of their submarine forces. This wasnt the subtle doctrine of information denial and deft tactical manoevre as the USN is so adept at. This was a doctrine of staking out a specific set of geographical coordinates, going active on everything, and daring NATO assets to try and get through to engage the subs!.
The hugely powerful (and simply huge!) Mars-Passat array on Kuznetsov was one of the cornerstones of this plan and was intended to keep the surrounding airspace surveilled for hundreds of kms. The Oko airborne sets in conjunction with Su-33 CAP and RORSAT data were intended to warn of inbound contacts below the Mars-Passat horizon or of carrier groups closing to strike range. With hindsight we can now see that a Yak-44 might have been an interesting fit in a Kuznetsov group, but, thats hindsight and an attempt to change the concept to something it never was. Just like, as I heard the story, the Antonov-71 as a carrier aircraft.
It’s probably safe to assume that the Yak-44 would have gained weight, but with 2×10000+kW it becomes a moot point – that’s more than twice as much power on an airframe that is physically almost the same size as the Hawkeye
Quite, and I concur that the engine flying on An-70 means that Yak-44 was doubtlessly viable as a CATOBAR type, what I would be in less of a hurry to propose would be STOBAR characteristics. Very high power outputs from engines, as described, come with penalties. For an AEW type carrying sensitive and reasonably delicate electronics the worst of these is imposed vibration load. Ramp those engines up to high revs and you will need a pretty massive airframe, or some very fiddly isolation measures, to keep those loads from being transmitted through to the black boxes.
Then you have the structural load imposed by the deck/ramp transition. I’m not sure if you have ‘hump-backed’ bridges in Germany but if you do race your car towards one and see what happens when you hit the start of the bridge elevation from the road surface. Now imagine that you are having to do that with tons of aircraft and electronics behind you several times a day!. Either way you have to design a very strong airframe which means weight penalties. For an aircraft intended to be CATOBAR it would be bizarre to impose such performance penalties on the aircraft just for those occaisions when you want to deploy the aircraft to a non-cat equipped carrier. It would’ve make a lot more sense just to refit Kuznetsov/Varyag with a steam cat over the angled deck rather than performance hit the whole Yak-44 fleet!.
Lastly, seeings Ul’Yanovsk was going to have a ski jump, its hard to envisage why, if Yak-44 was being developed as a platform with meaningful STOBAR capability, the Soviets were going to the effort of fitting steam cats especially after all the problems they had over the years with that technology. I just cant see Yak-44 as a STOBAR capable design I’m afraid Trident.
JonesyWhich carrier was the Antonov intended for then Trident?. Kuznetsov was never meant to have any more AEW than the Kamovs as it would only ever have needed lookdown coverage for self-defence. Its air defence function would be directed by the conventional air-search capability embarked.
Likewise Yak-44 only made it to mock-up state so its hard to see how anyone is saying its likely to have been STOBAR capable. Who knows what its eventual MTOW would have been and whether the power installed would be sufficient for such operation. The one thing that IS certain was that the Ul’Yanovsk models showed Yak-44 sat at the end of steam cats. Yak-44 was intended as CATOBAR.
E-2 is, allegedly, capable of some STOBAR operation but, according to the Indian reports, with a dramatically reduced fuel onload. Maybe uprating the engines would help there, but, the question of structural stiffening weight penalty against airframe life would have to be considered very carefully. Either way the E-2 is, in no sense, a STOBAR type.
JonesyNot going to happen, the RAF has already suffered cuts and PFIs, the flyboys wont lose out on anymore kit so the navy can get theirs
….and if you care to note who would be flying, probably, more than half of the F-35B’s and where they are being proposed as being based you might be suprised.
JonesyMinimum numbers should be something like:
2 CVF
10 T45 (Fleet AAW)
10 C1 (8 Fleet ASW/2 Command)
28 C2/C3 (10 ‘Batch1’ Patrol Combattant/18 ‘Batch2’ OPV)
12 Astute SSN
4 Future SSBN
Amphib Fleet as per present model.
JonesyPlane,
As the others state a tremendous amount of effort put in here and a very comprehensive piece of research into the equipment. Like the others I’ll have to fully digest before commenting properly, but, just a couple of points:
1) An-71 was never intended for carrier deployment. It was considered for a high/low mix with Mainstay for gap-fill and forward (austere) basing detail…all land-based. Yak-44 was the carrier aircraft and it was intended for CATOBAR ops off the Ulyanovsk and would not have been STOBAR capable.
As you correctly note this was scarcely a limitation for the Kuznetsov as that vessel was never intended, or even designed, to operate as a conventional fleet carrier. Rather it was intended as a forward deployed weapons platform to screen friendly SSN/SSGN forces interdicting the Atlantic SLOC’s from NATO ASW surface/subsurface hunter groups and marpats.
2) You’ve missed one of the primary factors in optimal airgroup performance in your aircraft section. Regeneration time for the airframe. If your aircraft is requiring 40 man-hours maintenance per flight hour it means you’ve got a team of 5 lads working for 8hrs in the hangar trying to get the aircraft back into action OR you need 8 lads for 5hrs. I’m not sure what the ratio is for the current Super Hornets, but the Tomcats figures were quite fearsome as I recall. Rafale, allegedly, offers a ratio of 8/1 for man hrs to flt hrs….that is a significant factor in the sortie generation rates for the Marine Nationale vessel.
JonesyGetting back to CVF
Surely the biggest issue here isn’t ownership of the aircraft …But simply that the UK buys enough of the things to meet all it’s needs. Harrier has been cut far too small and currently can’t really do this.
RAF/FAA doesn’t really matter as long as there is enough aircraft/squadrons to fill the land based role AND keep enough “Daves” afloat at all times to justify the size of the carriers…there is no point only embarking a Lusty/Ark size compliment on the new carriers.
Distiller hit something here before which touches on the last point Portagee raises above. These points being:
Whats the point building to 65000 tonnes if you aren’t going to get a fleet carrier and that there is no point embarking a CVS stovie complement on a CVF.
In both cases the answer is the same….if you dont need 36 strikefighters in support of your forward-deployed mission why have them permanantly embarked when the deck space can be better used?.
Does a 65,000ton vessel have to be a fleet carrier?. No – we have no use for a 65,000 ton fleet carrier and no obvious one coming up for a couple of decades at least. There was only one Red Banner fleet….its rusted away for the most part. The Russian threat, in naval terms, is going to be principally subsurface until at least 2025 and you deal with that threat with your own subs.
We going to sail a CVF taskgroup round to the South China Sea to try and engage the newly resurgent PLAN surface fleet….on our own perhaps?. Nope.
So, in the absence of a blue water threat, why are we concerned if, until EMALS is mature and emminently retofittable to CVF, CVF is a STOVL strike carrier. The difference in range between the F-35B and F-35C variants is, in strategic terms, small beer and more than balanced, for our operational model, by the benefits of the STOVL system.
Its been suggested that 18 F-35B’s would accomplish little if forward deployed aboard CVF yet have we ever deployed 18 GR9’s to Kandahar in support of Herrick?. I dont think so. Yet they have, by all accounts, provided sterling service. Anecdotally then in modest level conflicts 18 strike aircraft, themselves significantly more capable than the GR9, would be quite an asset to the UK group.
Sending the ships in as a ‘glorified LHA’ is entirely appropriate….if that is what the service requirement at the time and, lets face it, a CVF is going to make a hell of an LHA. The advantage of CVF over going down the cheaper and more ‘conventional’ route of just building LHA’s is that its impossible to get the sortie rates off such a vessel if you need to switch it back to a strike carrier role. CVF you can do that, plus, if the blue water threat does reappear and a fleet carrier becomes a requirement CVF can be reconfigured to provide that….again something not feasible with a number of smaller decks.
JonesyOf course. Just look at the size of the backblast clouds. That’s from a single missile, not six.
According to Eurosam press releases there was only a single salvo launch, and that where two Aster 15 from CdG.
Disagree. Having seen a lot of launches I think thats far too much rocket backwash for one missile.
I first saw that image in about ’98 and the debate started up at that time whether it was DCN trickery or not. An Italian chap, allegedly involved with MBDA, pointed out the backwash issue which I couldn’t argue!. Coupled to the fact that, if DCNS and MBDA aren’t spinning a line, like I said a maximum rate launch really is going to look something like that.
So either its high-speed photography of a single missile tipover which would seem strange to release into the public domain (VL missile launch being nothing new and Sylver having made test launches since the very early 90’s at least) OR it is a salvo fire test, apparently validates the listed RoF for the launcher, and has, unfathomably, been a successful test serial that was not expressly placed in the public domain. Odd one either way.
OK if, owing to the questionable nature of that image, we fall back on an alternate source, ignoring the DCNS/MBDA figures through possible commercial bias, we have a figure of 8 missiles launched ‘within 10 seconds’ from Richard Beedall’s Navy Matters website. Beedall having very well proven connections within BAE Systems and an RN Commissioned rank!. That giving a value of <1.25sec RoF.
the burkes have two separate vls. imho it’s no problem to shoot from both simultaneously or lets say alternating, so the “default” launch rate is divided by two for the burkes. for the apar equipped ships i take the 2 sec for an mk-41 because there is only a single mk-41 complex.
Right I must’ve misread the APAR graph as I though you had that as 1sec also. Thanks for clarifying!
JonesyWas waiting for someone to say that. High speed photography to show the tipover – heard the same thing. MBDA say not….that was the testing done to get the RoF for Sylver. That is what the picture would look like for the very high speed firing rate they list as well.
JonesyHarry
but with the figure of 138+ F35B [baring unexpected cuts]there is the possibility of large air groups as the RN seems to believe that they will have more the F35B as the the RAF as the Typhoon so the feeling from what i gathered in an old converstaion is the F35B will have the dark blue bias.
Its 138 as a final purchase though. By the time that airframes 130-138 are actually delivered airframes 1-12 could be next to exhausted etc.
As I understand it the Joint Force structure is fixed. That is 36 airframes for the four frontline sqdns, presuming that images of F-35B’s leaping airborne off carrier decks gives us enough pilots to reconstitute 801 by that point!. Plus the aircraft available from the OCU/2nd line sqdn.
I dont know – perhaps the individual squadron size could be crept back up to 12 airframes over time if we see the jets getting a lot of use. That would see 48 in the frontline ‘group’ and 3 sqdns, instead of four, deploy to form the active carrier airwing as dictated by the operational scenario.
Sign In
