SteveOAlso, why assume a higher loss rate? The fact is that (non combat) losses are not likely to be much higher if higher at all.
I meant failure to pass the training course, not a higher accident rate. It’s a lot more stressful to do a arrested landing than to do a vertical landing, not everyone is up to the task!
SteveOSTOVL operations are better over shorter distances because of the higher sortie rate they can achieve because they don’t need to wait for the catapults to launch or the flight deck to clear for landing.
A British AEW Merlin would obviously be better than the AEW Sea King’s they would replace and the only development needed would be for new systems.
At the end of the day I’m a V/STOL fan and I guess the CVF and JSF programs fail to show the advantages of V/STOL operations due to the fact that the costs of each option are so closely matched.
I still choose the F-35B and a V/STOL CVF everytime though 😉
SteveOHow do you envisage those UCAVs being launched? A STOVL UCAV (apart from being a substantial technological challange) would probably be subject to the same range/payload constraints as the F-35B.
Why would it be hard to make a STOVL UCAV with the performance of a F-35C?
Exactly. With the ships already being sized for CV operations and France now paying for the design work associated with implemention of the catapults and arresting gear the UK’s savings are pretty much limited to the actual aquisition costs of the latter. That can’t be too much if existing steam catapults are used (although EMALS would of course be ideal on a ship with IFEP). Just how much more money would a CTOL carrier really cost when you factor in the added cost of developing an AEW solution for a STOVL design?
According to http://frn.beedall.com/cvf1-12.htm
It is estimated that the cost of equipping the two CVF vessels with catapults and arrestor gear could add up to £150 million ($272 million) to the cost of each ship. However, the increasing likelihood of closer co-operation between CVF and the French PA2 programme, which will be equipped with steam-driven launch and arrestor gear, could bring these costs down if a joint engineering development and procurement programme was pursued.
The F-35C may actually be cheaper than the F-35B now, but the training costs will obviously be higher. Training for the STOVL JSF will only need simulators and local operational qualification, training for the CV JSF will need training on different aircraft and will have a much higher failure rate. A V/STOL AEW solution doesn’t need developing as I’ve already mentioned.
Edit- The flight control system for the STOVL JSF will be very easy to use and pilot friendly. Info here http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45334&highlight=Easiest+plane
SteveOThe hard way isnt that hard, the CVF’s are being built with the provision to able to be fitted with catapults, training could be done in the US (as the french do) and Hawkeyes could be bought of the shelf from the US without the expense of creating the new AEW merlin. The result would be a significantly more capable air-wing. Hell-the french are even building a variant of the CVF with this equipment. UCAV’s will ultimately be launched from carriers too, and the RN’s current land attack capability is severly limited to a small number of Tomahawks on the ever shrinking SSN fleet. Despite all the talk of fitting Toamahawks on new warships (if any ever arrive seeing how the MoD has a fascination with dropping projects and replacing them needlessly) and the T-45’s, nothing has been done about it, and is unlikely to be done about it in the Future.
The British armed forces, most notably the RN, are facing an ever more ridiculous fiscal situation, with less money having to be spread further and further whilst government finds more and more jobs for the military to do. The Irony is with all the money wasted on various studies and cancelled projects by the MoD (which in my opinion is the worst organisation in the UK second only to DEFRA) half the armed forces problems could have been solved by now.
The AEW Merlin already exists and is in Italian service http://www.targetlock.org.uk/eh101/images_italy.html
The advantages of a CV JSF airwing only come into play for deep strike missions. A STOVL JSF airwing has the advantage over shorter distances.
I totally agree with you about MOD waste, but I see a conventional CVF as another case of spending too much money on too few equipment programs. Why spend extra money on the CVF and JSF program to gain a moderate increase in performance when we could stay V/STOL and cover the performance gap with new weapons that are longer ranged and lighter in weight which will benefit the entire armed forces.
SteveOMy problem with a conventional CVF is that it’s going to require a lot more resources to gain a moderate increase in capability.
What is the point in spending money on catapults, arrestor gear, landing aids and conventional carrier training in the age of cruise missiles, stand-off precision weapons and UAVs?
The STOVL JSF and a AEW Merlin will have much improved performance over the Sea Harrier and AEW Sea King without the need for costly special equipment and training.
I just don’t see the point in changing to conventional carriers and aircraft to gain a deep strike capability that will probably be done by missiles and UCAVs in high threat areas and can be done by land based tankers and STOVL aircraft in low threat areas.
V/STOL is the easy option, why do it the hard way?
SteveOI agree with sealord about in-flight refueling, a STOVL refueler (and I can’t think of any such platform) will be a pathetic compromise (extending range by some 10nm perhaps? 😉 ). Land-based options defy the purpose of the carrier.
How do you explain operations over Afghanistan and Iraq then? The majority of USN and USMC (including the Harrier) missions used land based tankers. Why will operating the CV JSF change this?
SteveOThe HMB-1 was used for the Sea Shadow stealth ship http://w3.the-kgb.com/dante/military/hmb1.html
The Sea Shadow is now docked in San Diego, still housed in the HMB-1.
SteveOThe decision to go the STOVL route is a massive mistake and there is no reason for it. If the Navy isnt planning for smaller carriers it dosnt need STOVL aircraft.
Tradition was for some reason, which remains beyond anybody with a vague sense of intellect, touched upon when the decision was anounced with Britians unique experience with STOLV aircraft being cited as a reason!!! This is ridiculous, the only thing unique about britains experience is that it had no choice but to use such aircraft in a war becouse of earlier defence cuts.
Name one advantage that outways the performance losses of using the STOLV version? there isnt one.
I totally disagree, the advantages of STOVL operations are well known and any loss of performance can be made up for with the latest weapons and inflight refuelling.
The STOVL JSF will be able to operate from almost anywhere, the CV JSF will only be able operate from specially equipped conventional carriers with specially trained personal or from long fully operational runways.
Is the extra performance of the CV variant worth the risk of loosing the STOVL variants flexibility? I don’t think so anyway.
STOVL or CV F-35? http://frn.beedall.com/cvf1-12.htm
SteveOTo tell you the truth I hope the CVF doesn’t get built, in my opinion it’s too expensive, too ambitious and the organization of the program is too complicated. The government seems to have used the CVF program as an excuse to avoid spending money on new equipment in the past few years while making empty promises about future programs that might begin building when that government is no longer in power.
I wish the RN had settled for a class of 4x 30knot capable, 25,000t V/STOL carriers to replace the 3x Invincible’s and Ocean. They would operate 20x F-35B’s and 5x AEW Merlin’s, or a mix of commando Merlin’s and Apaches for the LPH role.
These would have been cheaper and easier to build and still be a big improvement in capability.
SteveOOn the other hand the areas likely to benifit from jobs building CVF are in Labour held areas, or am I wrong…….
Labour’s power base isn’t dependent on defence workers, it wouldn’t surprise me if they gained votes from cancelling defence projects.
In my opinion the CVF has very little political backing and will get cancelled as soon as it becomes inconvenient for the government to pay for it. Then we will probably buy a foreign made hull and spend twice as much fitting it out! 🙁
SteveOPA2 pics and info here http://frn.beedall.com/pa2.htm
It looks like there are going to be a lot of benefits for the French if they choose to build a version of the CVF. The UK paid for the design and development and the French will probably get the chance to bid for some of the CVF construction contracts under the new Defence Industrial Strategy 🙁
The CVF is another Tony Blair ego project and the Royal Navy should know better by now that it’s unwise to place so many hopes in such a expensive project. The UK only needed to replace the Invincible class and the Sea Harrier fleet, what was wrong with a affordable, easy to build V/STOL carrier and the STOVL F-35B JSF for our defence needs?
Maybe the Labour party has more conflicts planned to justify the need for the CVF 🙁
SteveOOK, 7… still a H*LL of a lot of hurt coming someone’s way!!!
Here is a pic of a SSGN Tomahawk silo with 7 missiles in a 2-3-2 hexagonal configuration.
SteveOBetter pics and more info on the CVN-21 program website http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.html
SteveOThis missile looks very similar to the TRIGAT LR, is it the same with a new name? http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=563&L=1
TRIGAT LR and PARS 3 LR
SteveOAre you sure this would be cost effective in terms of maintenance? I mean, wouldn’t this mean too many moving parts?
Maybe, but if the designers can come up with a rugged and reliable hinging system to reduce the width of a empty LCAC cargo deck the benefits could be worth it.
Sign In
