JonesyLawrence,
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.
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 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.
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.
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?.
JonesyYou don’t have to have a CVN to have continuous access to steam for your cats, the USN used non-nuke flattops and did just fine.
Non-nuke flat-tops that were powered by steam turbines though Sean. CVF/PA2 are not steam powered. Thats a big difference.
JonesySDB. The rack with 4 Small Diameter Bombs will fit easily into the F-35A/C.
Though I wonder if its possible to load that into the F-35B bay as it also fits into the F-22 which can only accomodate the 1000lb bombs. So I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of 8 PGMs in a single F-35B.
Thanks for this Eagle you’ve just perfectly duplicated my own confusion. I thought he was talking about SDB but, as you say, didnt think that the -35B bay would necessarily have a problem with it!.
JonesyAnd 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
True 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?.
JonesyLawrence,
There is nothing wrong with flogging a dead horse as long as it is entertaining.
A good point. We’ll never agree on this but it is an amusement! 🙂
Which ever way you cut it the B takes a range cut, the C would quite happily carry the Storm Shadow too which still gives it a longer range than a similarly equipped B.
Agreed, but, all were doing with this capability is duplicating what we already have with TLAM. Is a 35C carrying Shadows to hit a target 750nm away so necessary to have over a 35B carrying one against a target 600nm away. Is 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!.
Which makes the ludicrous suggestion that the UK air dropped munitions inventory is not going to change for the next 50 years. The fact is that it will and the majority of new western ordnance will be built for the A/C’s internal bays (see kongsberg NSM as an example).
Fair point. IMO it looks like western ordnance is getting smaller and not larger though. SDB and NSM being prime examples. If we accept that collaterol damage is going to be something that will continue to crucify western forces through the media this trend does not look likely to reverse itself anytime soon. Bottom line, sure, the A/C variant bay will be more flexible over they years. Flip side to that is though, again, is it worth the cost of putting in steam cats just becuase we might want to internal carry a 2000lb class weapon?. Hard sell that one!.
Define need, the very defence review these ships came out of declared very explicitly that there is no direct military threat to the UK, the carriers themselves are not ‘needed’, the fact is that not having Hawkeye is sacrificing a capability. The french ships will get catapults so there is no technical reason why the UK version can not. However I would love to see a cost breakdown between the 2.
There is no technical reason why its impossible. There are many millions of reasons why its undesirable to fit an auxilliary steam plant on an IEP ship!. Not having Hawkeye means that the ship is less capable in every role other than its primary one. I still dont see it as a massive drawback for the RN given what CVF is going to be doing for at least the early part of its life.
JonesyThat’s 150+NM radius, not range. And the difference in killing 8 targets with PGMs instead of 2.
My 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!.
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!.
8 PGM’s as opposed to 2 in the -35B’s bays?. Can you put a bit more detail on that one?. I understood the -35A bay was two 2000lb JDAMs and 2 AIM-120’s and that was that?.
JonesyHere we go again.
The UK should get the F35C, but they won’t because they’re too cheap to equip their carriers with catapults.
So, without using the words extra range (35C’s advantage I believe is about 150nm which we get back carrying Storm Shadow) and smaller weapons bay (there is exactly 1 weapon in UK inventory that this will stop being carried internally!), what are we losing by going STOVL instead of CATOBAR?.
Hawkeye capability?. The E-2 is a very useful capability to have, but, for the use CVF is going to get its not an ideal solution. Steam cats and an arresting engine come at a steep old price – especially when your carrier doesnt run on steam turbines like the CVN’s do. Why is leaving out something we dont need ‘cheap’?.
JonesyA light fighter thats basic enough to be supportable in austere conditions like an old MiG-21, as Distiller says, is probably still the MiG-21 – least as its F-7 evolution anyway!.
The issue really depends on whats expected of the light fighter as to what the potential solutions are. If all you want to do is shoot up and drop the odd bomb on your neighbours diamond mines then one of these converted trainer types is probably ideal. If you want the ability to stop your neighbours light attack aircraft doing that to your diamond mines then you have a problem.
With a 460knt top end what is a Yak-130 going to intercept in a stern chase?. A Cessna, possibly a few of the slower turboprop types?. Likewise the, expensive, radar mounted in the nose of the Hawk 200 will be very effective at seeing the striker head off back over the border unscathed!. There’s little a 500knt Hawk is going to be able to do to catch a 500knt Macchi339 let alone a Mirage5 or similar tonking off at 700knts or so!
If an Interception capacity is required these light strike/trainers are very little use…even if they are carrying a radar!. Top end of the light fighter sector now has to be the FC-1, the Gripen is closer to the US LFX concept that brought about the F-16/18 and cant conceivably be bracketed with the venerable F-5, the bottom end of the light fighter market – the F-7MG.
As Distiller says ‘Go Chinese’!.
JonesyI’m not talking abut Russia being ready to invade,
I know you are not. I am though. That was the whole context that the comment was made in.
JonesyFor your experiment to work, you’d need five or six sewing needles, and how will you simulate their wakes? Because you’ll notice the wakes of the SAG long before you can identify the individual vessels in the formation…
Not really – one would be a needle and the rest perhaps pins or tacks using comparitive scale. The point still hold though…you aren’t going to see them and it does not mean they are invisible.
Wake recognition?. Sure the big arrow that points to the carrier. Save for the fact that, most of the time, it points to a supertanker, or a liner or a VLCC etc, etc. Wake rec is great when you know where, and when, to look already.
JonesyStar you are arguing with a guy who thinks carriers are invisible, so you might as well stop.
Jonesy’s biases are pretty clear.
In his little world NATO is unstoppable and perfect, and Russia and any other non-NATO large military power is in terrible shape.
Little experiment for you Dionis. Take a sewing needle from your mums sewing basket and go out and place it on your garden path/driveway/in the street wherever. Then go back inside your house and look out the window and see if you can see the needle. If you cant ask yourself one question: is the needle invisible?. Then understand that, over the recon asset searching for the carrier, you have the advantage of knowing where to look.
When you’ve understood what is written above then I’ll start caring what you think of my ‘biases’!.
JonesyAtleast the common sense stuff i understand.
You state you understand the ‘common sense stuff’ so why then do you consistently claim knowledge of complicated operational issues such as deceptive manoever, ISTAR, C2?. You think that because an aircraft carrier is a big ship its an easy target to identify…thats not common-sense man its the epitomy of ignorance!.
I think 1 million will be the total armed forces size excluding interior troops.
So – not 1 million combat troops then?.
I think u should stick to 2005 reports. We are already in 2008. THere are big chunk now professional and upto 48,000 airborne troops.
So Russia has completely overhauled its whole training program in less than 36 months has it?. Absolutely amazing!.
what about the other 70%.? There is always wear & tear in any organization. Overall potential is never in doubt.
WEAR and TEAR????. Youre talking about nearly one third of the service manpower, since the inception of the training regime Ivanov talks about, being potential combat ineffectives thats not wear and tear its a national disgrace!!!.
I just gave one example. UK-French washed there hands from all there colonies right after World War 2. Russia hold onto it for next 45 years despite having suffered far greater damage at hands of German in men & material.
Do you really want to get into that argument?. The UK could not hold on to its colonies by force after fighting a war to free people from dictatorial tyranny. When they requested a seperation it had to be granted no matter how much it would’ve been beneficial for us to ‘keep a hold on them’. India especially in that case!. Russia, naturally, had no such problems sending the tanks in.
This EU is an Military embrassment compared to Russia. Just look at HongKong & Kuril islands.
Whats Hong kong got to do with this?. We had the place on a lease, acquired under very dubious circumstances, the lease expired and we handed the place back. There is no military factor to that issue?.
JonesyNow I remember why you were on the ignore list. Dont bother talking about naval matters Star you do not have a clue how much you dont know.
Russia’s current standing army is 1 million men is that right?. Utter fantasy.
For those ‘million men’ Sergei Ivanov holds bleak future: “the accident rate is not falling.”[57] Two of every seven conscripts will become addicted to drugs and alcohol while serving their terms, and a further one in twenty will suffer homosexual rape, according to 2005 reports.
Here’s hoping that the chaps manning those awesome double-digit SAMs aren’t part of the near-30% of conscripts that Ivanov labels as alcoholics or junkies huh?!. Still, Star, they have Iskander missiles so everythings ok isnt it!?. Good christ!.
It was the Soviet Fear that British-French abondoned Suez canal war. U simply have no history of fighting on mass scale against decent opposition in modern times.
Strange take on the Suez crisis. The French and British pulled out because the US didnt want a confrontation with the Soviet Union and threatened to call in war loans if we didnt do as we were told. What you’ve written is wrong in every pertinent sense!.
JonesyRussia scrapping INF will do absolutely stuff all and you know it Sean!. What are the Russians going to do…suddenly rush out and start building SS-20’s to counter the American Pershing-II’s and….erm….oh!. Western Europe isnt interested in IRBM’s or nuclear tipped cruise missiles anymore and I cannot concieve of any US interest in developing such systems especially to be based on European soil….if any European nation would have them now?!.
No, Western Europe has nuclear deterrent in the shape of the UK and French SLBM force and the Russians, as you earlier insinuated, no shortage of delivery systems capable of reaching every city in theatre. INF is a dead doggie and bringing it back to life an act of gross lunacy.
1. Russia’s double-digit SAM systems are in fact the best land-based SAM systems in the world, and the margin isn’t even really all that close.
2. Russia does have systems in service that’d make life very difficult for even a vaunted USN SAG. And they were in the business of developing the tactis to do just that for about 40 years, after all.
3. Anyone who thinks a fighter radar will detect something like a 0.001m2 target at 400km is deluding themselves.
4. Being a shell of their former selves and being a paper tiger are not the same thing.
1. Say its not so Sean…I stand amazed!. Who do you think you are talking to here man?.
2. No they dont. Not as a credible system of systems anyway and the house of cards they built as naval theatre targetting doubly so. The best they’ve got is passive sonar on a few SSN’s/SSGN’s and a prayer that no NATO SSN’s are about to counter.
3. Couldnt agree more…but you’d better be careful going down that tack Sean – cant suggest that there is military weakness in a Russian system can you?!.
4. Semantics.
Again, even though they are admittedly scaled back from the height of the Cold War, they are in no way a paper tiger that can be dismissed. Do consider that Western European militaries haven’t exactly been expanding all over the place since 1990 either.
No but western forces have nothing to do with this. The issue at hand is whether the armed forces of the Russian Federation have shrunk to the point were, in context of the armoured assault on the W.European NATO countries – the context that the initial conversation took place in, they can be called a paper tiger. The answer to that is obvious.
JonesyIs the Red Army technically a shell of its former self, based on the numbers alone? Yes. But does that make Russia a paper tiger? Oh no, it surely does not. Strategic Aviation is working up and modernizing. Russia might not be able to drive tank columns into Paris right now, but the time for that is past. And the Red Army is undergoing reform as well, even though they do appear to be the last priority insofar as the money goes.
Again, just because there is no perceived conventional threat to Western Europe from the Red Army, in no way means that Russia is a paper tiger. You need to learn to analyze the entire situation and take everything into context!
Sean in this context is everything. Garry got all humpty and started going on about Russia abrogating treaties specifically INF – my point was that now no-one in Western Europe had to worry about columns of T-80’s rolling down the Champs Elysees few would really care what the Russians chose to abrogate.
You have stated as much above that the threat of the Red Army rolling on up to the English Channel has receded. Therefore my point stands about the force being a shell of its former self. For all the wonderful double-digit SAMs they possess, warships that are truly smiters of all aircraft carriers everywhere, fighter radars that can detect a gnat urinating at 400km and all the other great stuff so often touted here the fact is that they are NOT a threat to NATO in any aggressive sense. Therefore, in comparison to what they were, they are now very much a paper tiger.
And no sane analyst can discount the massive nuclear deterrent Russia can fall back on.
No sane analyst HAS dismissed the Russian nuclear arsenal!. I dont know how many times I expressely used the word ‘conventional’ in the posting I made above especially to highlight the difference between the two facets of Russian forces. The conventional forces are, today, a comprehensive defence force well capable, I’m sure, of looking after Russia’s national defence needs, but, you surely have to accept, that is a dramatic scale-down from where they were!.
Sign In
