Thing is though, it is alleged, the Stig is not always the Stig!. Some manufacturers like Koenigsegg (IIRC) weren’t keen on having a driver, unfamiliar with their hugely expensive new supercar, blat round a track that the car may not be perfectly set up to do a flying lap on.

The androgenous Stig character is a great way to slip in a works driver wherever necessary without howls of ‘unfair’ being thrown at the show.

Sea Harriers can land on and take off from the LPD. Pretty sure I have a picture somewhere of an FRS1 that landed aboard Fearless in 82 when it needed an emergency refuel deck.

The Trenton could do something similar, but, the provision of an emergency VTOL-only deck does not constitute an operational capability. The LPD doesnt allow for STOL T/O so the useful radius of action would be restricted to the point where it would be nearly useless. The avcat bunkerage is unlikely to be able to supprt a fastjet airgroup, even a small one like that embarkable on the LPD, independently for very long and the support infrastructure would be wholly inadequate to arm, maintain and repair a Harrier airgroup.

Again though Planeman this issue with the ‘airborne CIWS’ is one of positioning against the inbound. Mistral, like most evolved MANPADS, has precious little cross-range ability – it is a ‘point-defence’ system. This means that, unless the airborne platform happens to be almost directly on the inbounds course, then there is little chance that a weapon like Mistral would be able to make an intercept.

A high endurance rotary platform as an EW asset, however, is an altogether different proposition. Spotting a multi-node ELINT detection capability 20k ft up 50nm off a surface group, on station for 18hrs, without a single planned flight deck movement required to maintain the capability once launched is obviously a hugely valuable asset to a task group commander.

Mounting a stand off jammer, onboard power limitations allowing, in an airframe that could be high-endurance stationed within normal AShM active seeker range of a group and only switched to emit at inbound seeker-activation, to confuse the missile terminal-phase and stuff up any possible value from a home-on-jam mode, is also something that could have real benefits to a forward deployed task group facing an advanced AShM threat.

The beauty of something like A-160T over the more conventional E-2/Ka-31 asset is, of course, that you have so much deployment flexibility with them. You could easily see a dozen or so embarked aboard a CVF type carrier configured for AEW with a Searchwater type array, perhaps three or four more on an LPH configured for ISTAR/Comms relay and should one crash/get shot down or even simply that a requirement for extra airframes crops up you get one VERTREP’d over from the RFA that has 6 in crates in the hold and let the tiffs screw it together and configure the airframe as necessary!. Hell of a capability.

Lawrence

Indeed it was and was I can only hope we both leave without animosity

Yep no problem here.

djcross,

The sortie rates are detailed as one of the Key Requirements in the CVF programme. The way it works out can be simplified as a requirement to generate 3.0 sorties/airframe for the initial 24hrs of an action dropping to a sustained 2.0 sorties for something like 7 days. Thats about the same that US CVN’s can manage IIRC.

Scooter,

Personally, I doubt the Royal Navy would select a STOVL CVF over a more Conventional one equipped with Catapults and Arresting Gear. That is if funds were not a issue. Which, I believe speaks volumes……..The truth is the RN is getting what it can afford not what it wants! IMO

Please believe this. IF the CVF was coming with EMALS straight out of sea trials you might be right. The problem with CVF and CATOBAR is steam cats. I absolutely PROMISE you the RN, at least the Engineering branch, wants nothing to do with pumping high-pressure steam around its ships ever again. Its bad enough to have to have it aboard ship when its the only thing keeping you moving. To have to deal with it just to fling pilots over the side….happy concept though that is….is a bit much!.

Seriously, as alluded to earlier, it must be remembered that our F-35B’s are NOT going to be dedicated carrier aircraft. We’re sharing with the RAF. Therefore we will not have the luxury of dedicated carrier pilots who, after deck quals, are keeping current with deck landings every other day. Our -35B’s could be tasked to land on a CVF at short notice and an RAF pilot straight from 6 months of land ops could have to recover aboard. STOVL means he can do this wheras CATOBAR means he’s going to stick the thing in the funnel group or something. Remember, as detailed earlier, it was an RAF pilot that managed to miss a CVS from 30 yards off in a hover!. Not too much is expected from them!.

If we were to go CATOBAR effectively we throw Joint Farce Harrier out of the window as it would demand dedicated naval squadrons with current deck quals. We do that and the RAF would throw a tantrum and, last time they did that, Australia got shifted a couple of hundred miles to the East!.

If we are buying what might be termed “proper” aircraft carriers, then IMO the “Cat & Trap” route is the way to go with the F35C.

If the Royal Navy chooseare forced down the F35B route then surely it would make sense to buy 3 or 4 improved HMS Ocean LP(H) class ships.

The EMALs issue mentioned previously on this thread is I think a bit of a non event as this system is required for CVN-78 and I would expect the US to throw whatever money was required to get this system working. As at this late stage in the design for the new US carrier a redesign back to a steam catapult would be unthinkable.

Thing is though Jack, just because this design is the same size as a Midway doesnt mean it has to be, should be or even needs to be a Midway.

CVF isnt a CATOBAR carrier that the RN has been ‘too cheap’ to buy the cats for – as originally alluded to. Its a purpose designed, IEP-propelled, STOVL carrier. It is the size it is not because it wants to be a CATOBAR carrier or for some kind of vanity so we can pretend we have a ‘real’ carrier its that size because that is the size it has to be to operate a potential three-squadron airgroup for the required sortie rates and the required time.

Its not a case that ‘because its STOVL we can build a toy carrier’ that doesnt work with F-35B – witness the move the MMI has had to make going to a Cavour sized ship from the Garibaldi. Cavour is knocking on 30,000tons and will come absolutely nowhere near matching the sortie rates and onstation time that is demanded of CVF. It should be remembered that with 36 F35B’s embarked at full wartime surge the striking power of a CVF will be the easy equivalent of a Midway and knocking on the door of a Forrestal. For a vessel with a whole-life cost that is a fraction of what US CV’s could manage that is no small achievement.

As to EMALS the ‘just throw money at it’ comment is meaningless. Reagan deemed the Strategic Defence Initiative a national necessity and threw potloads of cash at it. When did you last see a laser battlestation in orbit?!. If the physics isnt right EMALS is going nowhere. The concept of a linear induction motor to power the cat shuttle is great. The effect of a high level EMP blast every time the cat is fired, aboard an operational aircraft carrier, is the potential 500lb gorilla. I sincerely hope it works, but, I’d not be suprised if it takes quite a while to get it to sea.

While, you have merit in your reasoning of F-35B’s not needing tanker support in case of a bolter like Conventional Carriers do. They still will in fact be shorter in range nonetheless.

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.

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.

The difference could be much more than 25%. As the F-35C could be refuel by Carrier Based Tankers. A luxury the CVF’s can’t provide………

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!!!. 🙂

While, the CVF’s are not CVN’s. They are clearly Super Carriers or at very least large Carriers. As a matter of fact I believe the flight deck of the CVF’s are about 4 acres in size vs 4 1/2 for a Nimtz Class Ship. (probly close in size to the USS Midway?) Regardless, very Large, Complex, and Expensive Ships. I think everyone here would agree with that.

…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.

Good Point………….STOVL Aircraft could operate from either type of Carrier. The F-35, Rafale, and Super Hornet cannot! You got me there……..

LOL. I am not trying to ‘get’ you here Scooter…or Lawrence for that matter…there is no contest in this!. I’m just trying to demonstrate how, for a very precise set of parameters, the ‘accepted wisdom’ can be wrong!.

Clearly, a larger more capable radar (AESA?) would provide far greater range and volume! Sorry, but I don’t think you will find many here that truely believe the Sea King AEW is more capable than a Hawkeye………

I dont think anyone has said, blanket fashion, that the Hawkeye is inferior to ASaC7. I said for overland work in support of forces deployed in Iraq and the ‘ghan that ASaC7 had proven more useful than Hawkeye. A fact that the US military has verified by its interest in TOSS. Simply put if E-2 was capable of the same results they’d be tasking them not developing TOSS!.

Hawkeye is indispensible for the conventional carrier warfighting roles out in blue water. Its also great for extending local AWACS coverage over a task group in the littoral…it cant see behind hills/mountains though and there will never be enough embarked in a carrier for the CAG to be happy with one pushing deep inland. Today a new kind of ISTAR asset is required, IMO, that is the HALE/MALE UAV and, again IMO, that should be the asset carrying the radar and not a vulnerable manned platform.

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.

Not 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!.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Such things will always be achievable but the operational advantage of increased payload/endurance is indisputable.

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!.

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.

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!.

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.

As stated above to Scooter…..easy for the French…..not us!.