Ed,

The problem is that this sort of projection has been made since at least the ’50s, and certainly seems rather unlikely in the next 30 years or so. The ships, if built in CTOL configuration, are perfectly capable of operating the next generation of unmanned strike aircraft, which are highly unlikely to be STOVL.

Solid state DEW’s are being realised today so this isnt the 50’s ‘manned fighters are obsolete’ scenario…its far more serious than that and given that the lifespan for the carrier is 50 years all eventualities must be considered. How do you know what the next generation of strike aircraft will be. Look at how engines have developed in the past 20 and 30 years. Its entirely plausible that the next gen naval strike aircraft isnt manned and a non-STOVL Taranis-like UCAV with 40,000lb of installed thrust, from a new gen engine, may not need a catapult to get off a carrier deck at all.

The simple fact is that todays missions dictate a set of requirements, and building the carriers to the cheapest possible configuration, at the cost of operational capability today, is not always wise. The UK is currently engaged in the GWoT (however much some people complain about it), and this means having the ability to project power around the world; this is not a far off requirement for tomorrow, but a requirement for today.

Whats the requirement for the GWOT though?. Do we need to face down hordes of Taleban Backires?. Are the USN E-2’s keeping the battlegroup clear of Al Qaeda Flankers shooting supersonics at the ships?. NO. In Desert Storm did a single USN carrier come under any threat whatsoever despite the fact their predominant striker was the short-legged F-18. In ElDorado Canyon did the Libyans ever get so much as a track on any of the the USN vessels supporting the strike?. See the pattern?.

Actually, the carriers are intended for power projection, with a secondary role of providing close support.

Close support to ground forces ashore isnt power projection?.

The Harriers have been basically crippled when it came to the former, hence had to focus on the latter,

The Harriers were never designed as long-range interdictors thats true, but, then neither was the F-18 and thats been used very successfully as a ‘power-projection’ asset. This is because long-range interdiction is a very small component of power-projection and the USN very wisely leant on its TLAM capability for deep strike!.

but the new carriers are intended to redress the balance. The amphibious element deployment is going to be dictated by availability of Ocean and Ark Royal, which are intended to be responsible for carrying the amphib element; it is not intended to be a normal role for the new carriers. As for fleet ASW, this is not one of the major duties of the carriers, certainly not unless there is a sudden resurgence in the submarine threat.

Right. Reality check time. The carrier is designed to service the Carrier Strike tasking requirement. It is not intended to fight some latter-day Battle of Midway. If there was a developed naval threat that may wish to engage our carriers on the high seas then we would have the carrier you are trying to make CVF out as. No such threat exists now and no such threat exists in the near future. CVF is intended to provide tactical air support to friendly ground elements ashore and to provide Fleet Air Defence over a staging area.

It is big enough to be able to cope with a fairly substantial EMF and a goodly number of Chinook sized choppers so its design is incorporating features that allow for that utilisation if required. This is a legacy of using the CVS’s in the LPH role were they were found to be less-than-ideal!. Lastly much of the RN’s ASW capability now rests with the Merlin HM1 force…they are very powerful assets in this regard. CVF is obviously capable of embarking a few squadrons of HM1’s were it to be required and will have the C3 facilities to co-ordinate their deployment hence a Fleet ASW role.

The problem with that is that the carriers will only be fully operational in in the latter half of next decade. As it is, many nations around the world are getting Flankers, and high speed anti-shipping missiles; this means that the threat to the carriers is very real now, let alone ten years from now. The carriers are supposed to be fleet carriers, that is one of the reasons they are being bought, because the Invincible class has consistantly been found lacking in capability. Since the aircraft aren’t going to be ready in any decent numbers until around 2015, and nor are the ships themselves, and EMALS is targetted at about 2013 or so anyway, it would make sense to go down that route right from the start. There is no point buying the carriers in one configuration, and then having to alter them soon after, rather than simply building them in the most capable configuration.

EMALS is brand new, revolutionary, technology that has not made it to full-scale trials ashore yet – let alone be tested in a maritime environment that relies on multiple RF generating systems. EMALS will not be ready as a, fully-tested, installable shipset until 2020…it cant be. Releasing the kind of energy that an EMALS shot will generate in pulsed fashion around sensitive radars, comms and weapons systems is going to be a very interesting prospect and one that will have to be tested VERY carefully before it could be considered as deployable. Both CVF’s will be well built and in operational service before EMALS is ready to be incorporated, so, if we want CATOBAR from the start its US C13’s and lots of steam!.

In terms of V-22s, they would most likely cost the same as, or more than, the E-2 Hawkeye, and have less capability. They are attractive only in sofar as they are much better than continuing to rely on helicopters, and the ability to recycle the Searchwater radar systems.

Doubtful that a modified V-22 with a re-cycled radar/systems package would cost the same as a brand-new Hawkeye. The advantage of V-22 is the improvement in time-on-station that they would offer over Merlin. Problems, as you note, are that they dont offer much in the way of space (i think Merlin might actually be bigger!) and the cabin, IIRC, isnt pressurised. If the outer sensor picket can be mounted on high-endurance UAV’s the Searchwater AEW is only really ‘just’ a very high mast mount to push out the low-alt detection horizon anyway so Merlin/V-22 is probably academic.

As for savings, they appear to be a little thin on the ground, but more importantly, they mostly seem to come from cutting capability. The whole point of the carriers is to provide a major leap in capability, not just to replace the current capability. It is the reason why they are supposed to be around 65,000 tons…

No, the carrier is 65,000 tons because it needs to support a certain sized airgroup and is designed with the ability to be modified later in its service life. If you cant see the collosal increase in capability that a three-squadron airgroup of F35B’s based off a carrier capable of simultaneously embarking a couple of dozen Mariner-sized UAV’s plus dozens of rotary-wing assets engenders over a CVS thats creaking with a dozen GR7’s, the ASaCs and a handful of pingers then, I’m afraid, I’d suggest the problem is yours…not the carriers!.

This is exactly my problem – the US Navy has complained about the limited range of their Hornets for many years.

This is also my problem. We ARE NOT the USN and we should not attempt to emulate them too closely as we do not have a fraction of their capability set. the USN has all sorts of support assets that mean it can leverage strike assets of greater range ability than F-18C. We do not!. We would be doing well to use the F-18C’s to their full potential at present!. Until you can understand that point Ed there is no way that you can get this straight!. We should not be spending money on capabilities that we cannot support, fully exploit or plain have little use for…at the moment that is describing aircraft that employ the CATOBAR system. As we dont NEED it and do NEED the money elsewhere CATOBAR is of little value. Later, when EMALS is mature, we may re-evaluate that in the context of the threat systems of the day. If we need CATOBAR well, hey, the carrier is designed to accept it and the jobs a good ‘un. Til then what we’re getting looks like the capability set we need….lets be thankful for that!.

Quote:
Further, in any likely combat the RN would operate with Allied Carriers. Which, would provide deep strike, tanker, and AWACS support.

This makes the whole thing rather worrying. The whole point of buying large carriers is to achieve independence of operations. If you require to be accompanied by an American or French carrier for protection, then that pretty much makes the whole project a waste of money. The carriers are perfectly large enough to operate a good airwing, complete with AWACS aircraft, and aircraft capable of deep strike.

As stated over and over though Ed you are building a house of cards and then condemning it for not being strong enough!. Point by point:

Deep Strike: We cannot do deep strike against short-interval targets with F-35C anymore than with F-35B….you need a whole new level of ISTAR to accomplish that. If the targets are fixed and strategic in nature we already have systems that can be deployed in the form of TLAM and Storm Shadow. F-35C brings nothing to the Deep Strike mission that is worth the expenditure on CATOBAR systems to deploy it from the carrier.

Tanker: There is no such thing as a carrier-capable support tanker…you need a Tristar or 707 sized platform for that. Sticking a buddy pod and a few big wing tanks on an F-18 or whatever does not make it a tanker!. As earlier described buddy tanking is largely concerned with recovery of ‘bolter’ aircraft and topping up outbound strikers…STOVL does away with the need for this.

AWACS support: Local look-down coverage can be provided by rotary/tilt assets. High Endurance radar-equipped UAV’s offer seemingly more capability for our envisaged mission taskings that an expensive and closely husbanded fixed-wing AEW asset would. E-2 might be nice but it would be a luxury and there isnt much room in the budget for luxuries.

If all you want is an F-35B ship to operate close to the shore, then buy the cheapest LHD you can, or at most a copy of the Italian Cavour. The reality is that you don’t put a $15bn carrier battlegroup 20km offshore, there is a darned good reason why the US Navy sit their carriers a hundred or so miles offshore! With the proliferation of highly mobile anti-ship missiles, as evidenced by the damaged Eilat class corvette of the Israeli Navy off Lebanon last year.

Why an LHD or small CVL?. Neither of those platforms would be capable of supporting a sufficient airgroup or be capable of generating the sustained sortie rates required?. A large carrier IS the only platform capable of meeting the mission parameters specified.

What makes a STOVL CVF group be limited to sitting 20km off a hostile coast?. As I said earlier, given that the envisaged strike radius of STOVL JSF is going to be on the order of 450nm, the carrier can sit 250nm offshore and launch strikes 200 miles inland. To give illustration the carrier will be able to sit 200nm to the west of Plymouth and attack targets in Central London!!!. Storm Shadow carriage extends that by another 150-odd miles too!. This really isnt the poor capability set you are trying to make of it Ed!.

Scoots

While, I would agree the F-35B would be able to generate higher sortie rates. Still, the STOVL has its fair share of disadvantages too! With shorter range and lighter payloads just for starters.

The payload/range issue as addressed to Ed is a bit misleading. Yes the F-35C has more of both, but, the question is do we need that extra performance at the cost it brings in ship impact and whole-life support costs of going CATOBAR immediately and sticking a couple of C-13’s aboard with an arrester engine slung on the back?.

As it stands the F-35B will have comparable range performance with an F-18C which, to the RN is a good leap up from that achieveable with the Harriers and, until the Super Hornet entered the USN, was pretty much good enough for the CVN force!. As discussed earlier payload is no longer a very meaningful indicator of the value of a strike type. Gone, thankfully, are the days when A-7’s would launch with a dozen Mk82’s trying to lay down enough explosive to cover a single target!. If the F-35B can do the same job today with 4 wing-kitted SDB’s from 20km standoff whats the value in being able to hump round all that dumb iron?.

Also, STOVL aircraft have a much higher loss rate do to accidents vs your typical naval aircraft

I’d make the observation that the problem with STOVL accidents at sea has more to do with the single engine (not a problem unique to Harrier!) and slightly antagonistic handling qualities of the STOVL aircraft in question. Now, whilst F-35B is still obviously single-engined, so is the CATOBAR variant so that cancels out and the flight controls for -35B are allegedly meant to make the whole VL phase a greatly simplified affair. There is no reason, therefore, that the accident rate for the B variant should be more than that of the, much more training dependent, F-35C.

Then we have to consider the cost of ownership……………with includes higher maintenance cost. (i.e. lift fan, drive-shafts, rotating exhaust,etc.)

Ahh but again that is more than balanced out by the F-35C’s fatigue lifespan. Carrier aircraft are ‘lifed’ by the count of the number of traps and launches they’ve undertaken more than hours in the air. This is not a factor for STOVL types so, whilst you have to admit STOVL JSF has to be more maintainance intensive than its CATOBAR brother, each aiframe should last longer and offer greater service.

If, Jonesy is correct and I understand him. The CVF is design to operate close to shore within the Littorals. So, if that is indeed the case the CVF’s would benefit more by the higher sortie rate of the F-35B.

Seems to me you understand perfectly!. The CVF does not have to be with the opposition 12 mile limit here though Scoots. Standing offshore 250 miles is a great defence in and of itself and -35B will still allow a couple of hundred miles penetration back from the coast at that range – further if it carries Storm Shadow.

Further, in any likely combat the RN would operate with Allied Carriers. Which, would provide deep strike, tanker, and AWACS support.

IF any of those factors were to prove useful to RN operations yes I’d agree.

Ed,

Many nations are now buying Flankers, which can carry supersonic anti-shipping missiles, so I wouldn’t write off the possibilities of British carriers having to face similar threats… I still believe that the Hawkeye has the greatest capability balance for the manned AEW role.

I dont think you can quite quantify an Su-30 with Kh-31 alongside a Kh22-toting Backfire!. Its not going to be every Flanker that will be carrying Yakhont-type weapons and, in fact, those kind of weapons arent even the great threat that they may at first appear to be.

My problem with the idea of the STOVL CVF is the fact that fundamentally they are strike carriers, and yet have the least strike capable version of the fighter we are buying. The CTOL version carries a better warload, over a longer distance, and can stay on station longer.

….but with lower surge and sustained sortie rates, poorer operational window, more complex training and carrier quals process, etc. As stated earlier the payload/range is actually of little consequence. Time on station is the only real advantage the F-35C has and, for that, the carrier must be fitted with catapults and an arrester engine….no way a 10 or even 20% improvement in loiter is going to be worth the expense of going CATOBAR.

ELP brings up the UCAV, and rightly so, since they should be ready for service by the time the carriers are fully operational. One problem is that one of the roles for the manned fighters at this time will be escort of UCAVs (not always needed, but sometimes). For this, the F-35C is far and away the most sensible platform.

So why is the manned platform going along with the UCAV when you would send a UCAV to avoid risking the manned platform??? :). Hardly a reason to commit to millions in extra whole-life expenditure for CATOBAR.

Another role that is not talked about much is the buddy refuelling role; the F-35C should be able to carry a lot of extra fuel, and therefore could make an attractive buddy tanker, whereas the F-35B will be much less capable.

Buddy tanking is only really used for recovery and launch support tanking. Put simply a STOVL type does away with the whole necessity of this kind of AAR as there is very little chance of repeated go-arounds using up the aircrafts fuel reserves on landing (so no need for a recovery tanker). Equally there is no need to wait for catapult recycles so an entire squadron can launch in a matter of a few minutes. This obviating the need for a tanker to keep the earliest launched aircrafts tanks topped-off!. Quite opposite from a lack of buddy tanking being a drawback – the lack of need for a buddy-tanked aircraft is indicative of one of the great strengths of the STOVL design.

Overall, my question is this: what does the F-35B do that the -C version cannot?

Higher sortie rate, greater operational window, easier deck quals and continuation training leading to much cheaper ops etc!.

Distiller,

Those last couple of paragraphs read like you’d advertising a Wasp class LHD instead of the CVF!

There is an element of truth in that I guess. More than a few people have actually advocated precisely that kind of vessel as a solution too. What they miss is the rest of what the CVF is and the flexibility inherent in the, very competent, BMT design.

A Wasp LHD is just that, an LHD, without an utterly unfeasible amount of money and work it could never be a CVA. CVF on the other hand can do an LPH job, just as US CVN’s have on occaision, is designed from its inception to be a ‘super-STOVL carrier’ and can re-role when/if the technology and requirement come together to be every bit the CATOBAR carrier PA2 will be….probably better as it will still be the cheaper vessel to operate!.

I think you have just made my point for me Scoots!.

Those three are the closest to having blue water capability and not one of them will be at parity with an RN CVF carrier group within the next 20 years. Look at it this way – the full surge UK CVF group of 2025 is something like a CVF, 4 T45’s, 6 T23’s and 3-4 A-class SSN’s.

What is Russia putting up against that? Kuznetsov?, Peter the ‘could explode at any minute’ Great?, a Udaloy or two, perhaps some units of a new DDG design if they become more than paper vessels and a couple of Akula-II’s – maybe a Severodvinsk?. Not impressed.

What is India putting forward – a couple of modest STOBAR CVL’s with perhaps a dozen competent GP FFG’s/DDG’s and a couple of 1st gen SSN’s?. The only thing that the IN have is that they’ve caught on to networked warfare early and could be competent in the ISTAR-surface battlespace. With a deficiency in blue-water ASW that needs focus NOW to have the right kit and experienced people by 2025 I cant see how they would be equipped to handle the Astutes.

China could have a trained, experienced, operational carrier force in 2025 with a Kuznetsov clone, but, they are at a huge disadvantage to the others that simple shipbuilding capacity cannot address. They, in addition to developing tactics for their platforms, have to build up experience in prolonged bluewater deployments at all levels. They could have a fair carrier, competent-looking AAW destroyers and competent-looking GP/ASW ships in numbers and possibly a number of 2nd generation SSN’s. Having the toys doesnt mean much without the operators though and, from where they are at now, I cannot see them being competetive in the timeframe.

Even, if a case can be made for the STOVL F-35B’s. What about a AEW side of the equation? (let’s not forget COD or Tanker Aircraft Too!) Clearly, a conventional carrier based type like the Hawkeye would be vastly more capable than any (AEW) STOVL Osprey or Helocopter. So, maybe a compromise is in order………with a ski-jump at the bow for the F-35B’s and one or two waist catapults for larger AEW type aircraft like the Hawkeye………………of course now you can also cross-dock aircraft with American and French Carriers too!

I dont think there has been much of a bigger advocate of E-2 Hawkeye on these boards than myself over the years – I think thats fairly safe to say. IF you already have, or are developing, a medium-sized CATOBAR fleet carrier OR are developing a naval-aviation capability primarily oriented for Sea Control operations then Hawkeye is a fairly integral component of the capability you want to be dispatching.

Our programme is called Carrier Strike for a reason though. We’re not designing our capability to re-fight the ‘Red Storm Rising’ battle of the Atlantic – rather we are developing our capability to project power from the sea and support forward deployments of ground forces. This is predominatly because there is no-one on the planet, apart from the US, who will have a sufficiently developed naval/air/space capability to pose a threat to a circa 500nm-strike-range carrier group for the next two decades.

Our requirements for a MASC system do not finish at the provision of airborne radar coverage to the fleet as a whole. Simply put we need more than that out of the system in ISTAR terms. We need assets that can be forward deployed to gather targetting data to support TLAM, tacair and NGFS and, if your embarked ISTAR capability rests on 4 E-2’s, the question is are you really going to send one into bandit country after, for example, a company of enemy troops moving in on friendlies?.

The answer, in that situation, is No, you are not!. The situation exists then that, to leverage the kind of deep strike capability the RN hasnt had since the last Buccaneer made its final cat shot, some form of MALE UAV will be essential to the airgroup. IF you are reconciled to that fact and UAV’s exist today, like the Mariner, that can loft competent multimode AESA radars it begs the question of whether it might not be smarter to have the UAV’s do the survillance picket job as well as ISTAR. Perhaps with a manned rotary/tilt-rotor platorm to provide local airborne radar direct to the fleet?.

After all for the fleet defence mission what is going to be required is low altitude coverage sufficient to alert the AAWCS to a 3M54E type weapon with sufficient timespan to get the T45’s switched on and softkill out. ASaC7 can do that today. V22/Searchwater-Cerberus could certainly achieve the same as a replacement.

If you then have your Mariner asset near-station over the shore target feeding back optical/SAR imagery and the local air radar picture to the task group you have a platform that is much more effective than an E-2 for much less cost and greatly reduced risk. The only drawback is that the E-2 would be much better for defending against waves of Kh-22s from the Backfires!

EM2 wasn’t chambered for a 5.56 (.223) round either. It used a round based on the .270 Winchester cartridge which was found to be the maximum that was controllable (by an average soldier) on full auto. My dear old dad, god rest his bits and pieces, had the opportunity to test the weapon and would wax lyrical for hours, when I was growing up, on how much of a superior weapon it was!.

Ironically enough the US Army is now looking at a similar round to the 270 Winchester for its new standard calibre as the SS109 is becoming discredited for being too light!.