Especially after the Libya ops the RAF contention that reach and AAR offsets naval air has been proven to be a lot less solid than advertised. The very clear gap in the French contribution and ours has been noticed and the light blue are aware of that. They have a gain to make from playing and 35B certainly replaces the short field deployment ability they lost with GR9. Easier sell than the alternate.

Common sense doesn’t belong in any discussion about forces rivalry, the arguments about using carriers to improve the RAF’s reach have been around since 82! I don’t see Libya changing anything at all in this regard other than making a handful of interested people nodding their head and saying “told you so”. If you took a vote amongst RAF personnel about whether the UK should have a carrier strike capability I would expect the majority would say “No”.

The plan view attached shows why thats not the case. The emkit is mounted where the ‘waist’ cat would be on the catobar hull. Using a double length run, compared to the test article, for illustration but, to be honest, you could triple or quadruple the length with little consequence. The only thing that emkit will disrupt will be rotary ops…possibly…for the short window once a day when you are firing off uav’s.

I prefer this photo showing a head on STOVL CVF:

CVF has a 70m wide deck, and Mantis (since we’ve been talking about it) has a 20m+ wingspan, so it’s fairly obvious that a aircraft with wings down is compeletely obscuring use of the ramp for F35b. This is okay if things go to plan constantly but then quite often they don’t.

Also since you’ve been talking about converting the CVF to CATOBAR in the future I’d like to point out you’re talking about adding EMKIT where the waist catapuilt would replace it. It seems a little risking to me to cut big holes in the deck for new kit, then ripping it out again making a bigger one for bigger kit in the future.

Jim Murphy is further the steroetype of ignorant Labour defence spokesmen. In particular:

I’ll be honest the more I hear from him the lower my opinion gets.

Not strictly true Kev MASC is, last time I checked, still on the books and SOLOMON/SCAVENGER covers the old brief from DABINETT to advance UK ISTAR. MALE UAV’s of the type outlined definitely falls under those requirements. You could even say that a single type, such as Mantis/Telemos, covering an array of roles for land or sea based ISTAR represents the most efficient approach possible over the long term. The alternate of a Hawkeye/MALE UAV or rotary/MALE UAV for MASC/SOLOMON would seem a touch absurd.

As shown by the US Guardian adaptation from MQ9/Mariner once you have the airframe you can make it fit all sorts of requirements. We certainly face question marks over the future of maritime patrol around home waters…how useful could it be to deploy the same MALE UAV for that tasking that we use to find insurgents in Afghan, that we use to support Carrier Strike afloat etc.

Seeing that a rotary solution to replace the baggies Sea Kings would require development money, that Hawkeye would cost billions to deliver as a solution and that both of those options offer nothing close to the MALE UAV flexibility, to me, this becomes a real no-brainer. That the launch method for this class of UAV is developed, de-risked, and all but ready for deployment just adds to that.

While I agree that a UAV able to operate from carriers is desirable it still isn’t funded in any way shape or form, and the requirements from MASC is still unresolved as well, and I’ve read at least one MOD source to have recently stated still unfunded.

We might see common sense prevail and any future UAVs developed as a result of the recent agreements with France be carrier capable, but I wouldn’t bet on it, the RAF will do everything it can to prevent it from happening arguing on cost grounds.

But regardless of this I still see carrier capable UAVs as more likely with a CATOBAR carrier rather than developing some STOVL/STOBAR hybrid solution.

I’m not sure that the inclusion of a light, short run, catapult such as EMKIT would need a re-classification of the carrier as a hybrid exactly either. This isnt like adding a pair of full size 90m cats at the waist as per the Ul’Yanovsk design or anything akin to it. If you look at the T26 concept work there is mention of a UAV launching system in that. This would be more analagous to that sort of set up. Again with UAV endurances of 20hrs upwards the flying programme isnt going to be heavy on catapult operation.

Sorry but I definitely do see it as having a significant impact on the rest of the flightdeck, it would at the very least require the installation of arrestor gear. Have you seen the T26 concept video? It shows what appears to be a Scan Eagle or something very similar; a small UAV operated off a tiny capauilt with a pretty low footprint, nothing like what you’re suggesting.

Martin Withers and Bob Tuxford had serious balls for pressing on with the mission knowing that they didn’t have enough fuel to get home! 😎

The only thing wrong with the programme was that a 1 hour show isn’t long enough to tell the entire story, they had to omit parts like the problems in fitting the Dash 10 pod on to the Vulcan as well as the full story of Tuxford’s final refuelling. Pity someone wouldn’t make a full length serialisation of Vulcan 607 so that the whole storey can be told. 😎

There was quite a lot wrong with it other than that, it rather sensationalised the effects of the raid; there was a digitally imposed exploding aircraft during the final scene when no aircraft were destroyed, no mention that the runway stayed open, no mention at all of Black Buck 2 – 7, the entire programme suggested that the raid was a one off.

Its a technology demonstrator with 2500 test firings as of 2007. Theres a pretty solid analysis from an RN Lt Cdr below that states Converteams contention was that, with a longer run than the 15m test article, even the 2007 low-voltage configuration would be sufficient to send up a circa 5000kg MQ9 sized vehicle. That puts EMKIT, 5 years ago, at the level necessary to do the job.

There would be costs involved in cutting a hole in the deck for the cat and the recovery mechanism. There would be costs involved in systems integration and all the usual trials that go with such systems development. What you get at the end of it though is organic persistent ISTAR for, comparitive, shirt buttons.

The good Lt Cdr states that, in 2007, it was considered that it would take less than £2mn to polish up the trial system into something fit for a production run. The refit of the CVS’s to remove Sea Dart and introduce new hoists and aviation capabilities cost about £24mn each in FY’00 £’s and this modification would be analagous in complexity. Quadruple that sum for inflation, hardware aquisition and any surprise sys integration nasties and you are still looking at a tiny sum to deliver a huge capability set.

Better than I was expecting but I still don’t believe it would only cost £2m to produce a production set, and as for the cost of installing it, on a bigger hull with a much bigger flight deck it will almost certainly cost more, sorry but I just don’t believe that the MOD have any capability to get a project like this done, on time and at such a low cost.

BAE have already been to India with Mantis, the IN is known to be less than wildly impressed with Ka-31 and they are building/inducting STOBAR hulls. You are so sure they would not be interested in a platform that can offer Searchwater type coverage 24hrs on station at 30k ft especially if the package includes the EM cats to launch them?. I could see India being very interested there as well as Japan.

http://www.jneweb.com/EntityFiles/5/2504/JNEPaperFileName/v44b1p04a.pdf

BAE also took a proposal for Sea Typhoon to India, true Mantis may of flown and Seaphoon hasn’t but it’s still a technology demonstrator awaiting development funds and it looks like BAE aren’t prepaed to stump up their own cash. They’re waiting on the UK and French collaborative programme now dubbed Telemos. I’d love to see an carrier capable armed recon version but I can’t see Mantis going anywhere.

Well I am conscious that is not strictly about the CVF Construction so if we need to move the discussion let me know.

I would have thought that the US Marines would like to run a fleet of strike UCAVs alongside their F35Bs in the next couple of decades:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1fxDIIBRjE for movie.

http://robotpig.net/robotics-news/lockheed-various-ucav-concept-with-video-_1920 for info.

News to me but these look very much like small UAVs only really useful for CAP and COIN, similar to the concept pictures of RN ones I mentioned above.

The B allows us to have a very capable LO design that can carry the latest AAM missiles with the latest sensors. Its no worse in terms of performance than the C (other than range).

+ internal weapons carriage, there are still question marks over what will go in the bays.

+ Higher running costs

As to UAV’s you only need to look at something like the General Atomics Mariner concept to see what is feasible even today. Why does this need to be STOVL capable?. Why not just put a low-power EMKIT type unit on the waist for launching slow-mover MALE types?. Even ‘old news’ Mariner put up a decent capability surveillance set for upwards of 24hrs at a stint. How many deck reconfigs are you going to have to fit in the flying programme when you only launch/recover your ISTAR capability once a day!.

Only if we stump up the costs for developing EMKIT, it’s not a finished product yet and will cost more to get working, and we’d have to develop the UAVs as well, for what would be a very limited range of customers (probably just us), also we would still need to pay for modification to the carriers.

I’m on my own here, but here we go….

The F35B will be made to carry Stormshadow (potentially the LR version under development) underwing.

The possibility of UCAVs had hardly vanished. There are lots of new VTOL UCAV designs on the drawing board.

As to the X47…I don’t think the first one will be the best.

So you are all worried about the loss of a longer ranged (but delayed) C variant which allows old designs like the E2 to land on the decks? These puppies are supposed to be around for decades and wont enter service for the best part of 10 years right?

Why are we even talking about the E2?

Imagine a brave new world where these decks are stuffed with VTOL UCAVs, UAVs and F35Bs…. where is the problem?

If they go for the B, then the RAF doesn’t have a natural Tornado replacement which will in turn make the new UCAV even more crucial….

Where are these VTOL UAVs coming from? I can’t see anyone making to much other than rotary ones, I can’t see either the French or our Government doing much in the way of research for a VTOL/STOVL UAV in the future either because it would cost more and have less range than a conventional one, the RAF have got no interest in the type and they will have the only say over what the MOD wants in the future.

the CVF was always designed to be converted mid life if needed.

The figures being quoted seem to suggest otherwise, I am now firmly convinced that this was a load of flannel with the only requirement for CVF’s later conversion was that it be big enough for it to be possible.

Personally rather than switching back to STOVL i would prefer they continue with the CATOBAR CVF and split the JCA requirement from the Tonado replacement program, keeping involved in the F-35C as part of the Tornado replacement come 2025 as that would ensure a carrier capable RAF Strike package in line with our long term force goal. However instead of F-35C for the FAA aspect of JCA go with an off the shelf solution such as Super Hornet or Rafale M of a couple of sqdns worth, then use these to form the basis of the CVF airgroup using shared facilities with our allies to keep running costs down. They can then act in the cap/sea strike roles, make use of the existing buddy tanking capability and if nesessary be replaced by F-35C should it be suitable or sign up for the NGAD.

The best idea of this type that I saw came from a French Minister who announced that it would be willing to loan the RN some aircraft if needed, that way the F35c purchase could get kicked to the right for a few years while the RN work up with Rafale. I’m not sure how feasible the whole thing would be in practice though.