PromPhysics….? Pah!:)
My point is that for things other than dropping bombs at range (which is what the F35 is for) there will be plenty of designs appearing to do all the other carrier jobs.
Granted the UCAV side of things may take a bit longer to get serious weaponry in the air…:)
Refuelling may take a while as well.
Plus for AEW you are going to want fixed wing, large payload and long endurance – so for the top spec AEW you will need the bigger catapults
Prom….as of 2012. Who is to say that by 2030, there won’t be a booming market for UAVs that can operate with a much smaller deck footprint?
Plenty of small carriers out there. Plenty of medium size carriers too. And the global UAV market is still in its early years….
The laws of physics are pretty mature and not expected to change though. I’m sure there will be some UAVs you could launch from a STOVL QEC, I’m also sure that there will be some you could only operate from a CATOBAR carrier because the US (in the west at least) is a bigger customer than the rest put together
PromThere aren’t any cheaper aircraft:
Up-Front investment in F-35 + cost of buying UK aircraft< tax take * UK work-share
PromThe AEW comment was actually aimed at a different poster and a different point Jonesy, I wasn’t very clear.
Take Libya, the Libyan regulars were (for example) driving technicals out of urban (with civilians) cover, setting up and firing mortars, then back into cover again very quickly. An F35 loitering in the area may have time to engage, one on the deck certainly won’t. It doesn’t matter whether it is 100m, 200m or 5 miles, you have to engage whilst in the open.
In those cases you need the platform with the weapons closer
Where the aircraft is providing close support to ground troops, they need it now, not some time in the future.
Lets fact it, the F-35C has more endurance and thus more loiter; more usable weapon load, and more bring back. The only advantage of the F-35B is the ability to operate from rough airfields and small areas etc. But its not VTO so it is not as flexible as the harrier. How often has the harrier used that capability for real? Not much
CATOBAR always gives us a bigger variety of aircraft we can operate (incl the F35B of course) now and in the future. It also gives us for free a bigger variety of UAVs we can operate.
So it comes down to cost, can we afford it (the cost of conversion)? We know that the F35-B costs more to buy, costs more to run through life, will cost more in weapons dumped.
The leaked paper suggests that we would need to buy more. well to produce the same time over target; or the same weapons dropped on target we would need more because of the endurance and weapons load.
So over the next 20 or so years, I really doubt that going to CATOBAR and F35-C would cost more, in fact I would expect it to cost less. If it is a question of not affording it up-front, then I would rather convert and buy the aircraft at a slower rate.
PromSorry Jonesy but aircraft on deck even at +5 is not fast effects. You say the French were getting aircraft over the target in 20mins- but the Libyans were setting up, firing and moving in less than that. Sometimes you need an engagement cycle measured in seconds or at least a few minutes. Depending upon the ROE, a n F-35 loitering allows you to do that.
With CATOBAR, for most campaigns, I suspect that the US will quite happily base an AEW a/c or two on a QEC, I’m sure COD could be available too if needed. That US only compartment isn’t there just because its the only place the USN could get a drink
As for the Argies, AEW or not, I am prepared to bet fairly heavily that whilst we have decent AAW escorts, our SSNs and a QEC with aircraft, that they won’t go anywhere near the FI. Why? because not only could we retake the islands, we could also systematically destroy their military infrastructure through a combination of TLAM (or successor) and F-35 strikes along the way. Look how they reacted to one long range Vulcan strike last time.
PromCloser-in basing and rapid reaction to proper recce asset tasking calls is by far the better solution, for us, than the necessity to deploy fresh fighters on cab rank every hour and a half.
Against that you have a few MALE UAV’s on station for 24hrs and only rapid-launch ‘alert’ F-35B’s when a tasking order comes in. Which option requires more aircraft and higher fleet loading you wonder?.
And if the target is inland do you want to fit wheels to QEC so that we can base the aircraft closer?
If you only launch when the UAV finds a target, that target will probably have gone by the time the aircraft gets there. If it was a nice fixed static target we could hit it with tomahawk or predator
Think about the loitering needed for Libya for example
PromLong range recce, in permissible environments, could be fixed before the carriers are finished. As I have already stated a UAV able to carry and power a suitable search radar is flying operationally now. Its manufacturer claims it can be carrier converted. The low-power EM catapult to launch the 9000kg class UAV also exists and is tested.
1) if the cost of converting QEC for full CATOBAR really is £1.8bn, your low power E-M catapult will of course be cheaper to buy, so that saves half of the EMALS cost, but presumably installation, training, systems changes will be about as much. Indeed you would need both the CATOBAR systems and the STOVL systems if you only installed it. Also deck layout and training would be more complicated. So I’m struggling to see how this would be affordable given it is going to cost north of £1.5bn
2) If the cost of converting QEC/POW is much less, then why aren’t we doing it?
Either way, I can’t see why your option gives good value for money Jonesy
PromI can’t see behind the firewall, but I gather from elsewhere that acoording to the Times:
The configuration of the two new carriers, under construction is somewhat misleading. If these ships are fitted with catapults & arrester gear this will not preclude them from being equiped with F35B VTOL aircraft & cross operating with French carriers. What it would mean is that these ships would be able to operate all known or projected forms of carrier borne aircraft & cross operate with both French & US carriers.
For ships destined to remain in service to perhaps 2050, such flexibility seems to me to be essential. If they are sent to sea with only a VTOL capability, they will be ham strung from the word go.
Gives lie to the statement that all service chiefs are behind STOVL
And is I believe correct. This is a 50 year life asset – let us invest in it as such
PromMeanwhile, LB05 roll out this weekend/early next week I hear
PromNo idea Swerve. It would seem surprising, but I haven’t seen the breakdown. I was merely correcting the views that there would be o increase in costs to go back to STOVL etc
But what we do have so far as possibilities for differences between the UK and US figures:
One would hope that the figures being considered by the NSC also include the offset the other way (cheaper aircraft, weapons bring back etc). Though I admit that does not seem to be the case
PromGood question as technically none they are being built at present to their original design..
Not true, some items were removed from the baseline quite quickly even though their CATOBAR equivalents were not necessarily added. They may be small beer, but they may add up.
As to the cost of training, it is generally accepted that it will be more difficult to train up for CATOBAR ops than STOVL. Thus it is reasonable for the delta in training costs to be included in the cost comparison to be used for decision making,., Indeed it would be negligent for them not to so do.
PromCan you give seem examples of things which had been fitted, & had to be removed? I don’t mean things which were intended to be fitted, but omitted..
I mostly mean the latter. Even though they had not been “fitted”, costs will have been incurred because they have been removed from the design and now need to be added again, which because the design and build has progressed means they will cost more.
Remember that even if something is not “fitted” to the ship, the systems integration has been continuing apace, messing around with systems mid-development is well documented as a cause of cost increase.
PromOf your three categories, I don’t think the first amounts to anything. I don’t think anything has had to be removed for CATOBAR.
Yes it has. Plenty of other stuff related to the conversion which isn’t hard visible metal and so doesn’t get much of a mention.
Such changes also go some way (but by no means all) of the difference between the UK and US cost estimates. Training may well account for most of the rest
PromWhat “money already committed to modifying the two carriers to CATOBAR”?
Cost of removing items that were deemed necessary for STOVL but not CATOBAR and thuse stopped ASAP with the intention of saving money once a decision had been made, cost of re-introducing them now that a different decision has been made
Cost of the study team to date
Political cost of changing our mind with the US. Again
PromI’ve been told that Brits have always viewed warships with something of an expendable commodity, seldom targets of signifant public emotional attachments.
I don’t think that is true Yama.
The ‘finest hour’ of the RN however is pre-1900 and the wars with the French, Spanish & Dutch when the RN were undeniably pre-eminent in the world. So I think there is might be more emotional attchment to ships from that period than 20th century.
Sign In
