So will the RN be calling “their” F-35s “Sea Lightning” while the RAF calls theirs Lightning?

Traditionally, the RN only applies the prefix ‘Sea’ to an aircraft that has been adapted for naval service from a land based design, eg Sea Venom, Sea Hurricane, Sea Spitfire (shortened mercifully to SeaFire), and Sea Harrier. Those that had Naval operations in the original design brief don’t need the prefix, eg Phantom, Buccaneer, Gannet, Lightning. The Sea King is a bit of an anomoly, but the name was carried over from US practice and their criteria differ from ours.

I thought Clarke Air Force Base was buried under many feet of Volcanic Ash? Wasn’t thet the reason the Yanks pulled out in the 90s? Mt Pinatubo anyone…?:confused:

There would have to be some changes like the additional runway overhang and the moving of the port bow CWIS mount.

With 140knot+ Bolters those changes are essential, with 40knot SRVLs they are optional IMHO. Still constitute minor changes really, steel work for the most part.

If they did decide to fit an angled deck and AAG the E-2 has in the past been quoted as being able to take off from a ski jump Northrop Grumman did testes if I remember right incase india wanted it for there stobar carriers might be worth it to give the carriers a more effective AEW capability after the lessons of the Falklands war AEW is an absolute must and we must strive to get the best capability we can.

Why does everyone still talk about ‘fitting’ the angled deck? It is fitted! It only has to be painted on to the deck. The only additions physically needed for the CATOBAR configuration are a round down at the stern (a few hundred tonnes of steel) and som aerodynaic reshping of the forward end of the angled deck (a few hundred more tonnes of steel) which is only really necessary for high speed conventional landings and Bolting aircraft. If SRVLs are at around 40mph then the fore end remodelling of the deck isn’t so important and the aft round down can be dispensed with too. The sponsons already fitted are wide enough for a fully angled deck to be painted on.

Which brings us back to the concept of buying F35B now (so they can say we will get the carriers earlier and it will cost less- the leak about 1.8billion conversion costs softens us up to the idea that the “ideal solution” is too expensive right now).

And then looking to convert if need be in the future. Its more consistent with the original plan and less politically damaging.

But you can always go with the John_K argument that a delayed conversion is one which will never take place.

I think the first idea will be what happens IMHO.

£1.8Billion is the cost of converting BOTH ships, not one. The differnce in the purchase price between the F-35B and ‘C means that buying 50 ‘Cs saves enough money to cover the conversion of one carrier. Buy another fifty Cs and you can pay for the second to be converted. Going STOVL is most certainly not the cheaper option…;)

FYI on a carrier it isn’t called ATC (Air Traffic Control), it is normally referred to as FLYCO (Flying Control Office). ATC is a landlubbers term…;):diablo:

Not too sure why the RN needs SSBNs………I would think that a combination of RAF and (future) RN aircraft (a new gravity bomb and perhaps a ‘nuke’ warhead on StormShadow) could maintain a pretty reasonable deterent.

The RN doesn’t ‘need’ SSBNs and never has, it is the British Government that needs a credible national deterrent, and this means a survivable second strike capability. The only truly survivable delivery system is SLBMs and SSBNs, and they ae operated by the RN on the Government’s behalf. The RN otherwise has no use or ‘need’ for SSBNs, they do not constitute a part of the fleet as such beyond for administrative purposes. Aircraft launched/dropped nuclear weapons were removed from the UK inventory some years ago (as a cost saving), but it should be remembered aircraft generally live on air bases which suffer from the inherent vulnerability of being unable to move or conceal their location from potential enemy, and remain susceptible to a pre emptive strike. Aircraft can always be intercepted on the way to the target, whereas there is no real defence against ICBMs.

Not necessarily Ben. The problem with the hook is the siting of it under the rear fuselage. The wire has no time to sufficient raise up after being flattened by the rear undercarriage to allow the hook point to get under and catch it. If the heath robinson hold down damper fix isnt reliable or leads to deck/hook damage in overcooked landings (how do you get a CATOBAR jet down that has ripped its tailhook off?!!) then there is no other option than an aft fuselage redesign. At this point that would be an issue that dwarves a few ropey door actuators on the 35B!.

Simple, you rig the barricade and the plane lands into that. As well as the damper alteration, the hook tip itself is being redesigned. Trials are only months away…