The issue with Serbia getting anything western is that it has zero change of an ITAR waver. Getting something Chinese or Russian would be much easier for them and probably cheaper.

The P1154RN was intended to replace the Sea Vixen as the Fleet’s air defence fighter. There was no intention at the time to operate it from anything other than Fleet Carriers (both existing and CVA class) so it would make best use of existing facillities, including catapults. It would have been capable of free takeoffs, but as with other STOVL types it would have had payload restrictions, so it made sense to make it catapult capable to get off the deck with max payload and fuel. The only sea going experience with STOVL aircraft at the time was the P1127 trials aboard Ark Royal in 1963, and the most impressive aspect of these (to the Navy) would have been concerned with landing aboard as opposed to takeoffs. Even the Sea Vixen could make free takeoffs from a carrier (albeit using almost the whole deck length and little payload) but landing on was always (and to this day also) a risky business even with the angled deck. P11154RN offered conceptually the best of both worlds, catapult launch to get the plane in the air with full fuel load and max weapons load, then the aircraft could be recovered vertically like a Harrier at the end of it’s sortie. CATOVAL, if you like, concepually the opposite of STOBAR which I have always viewed as the worst of both worlds (limited takeoff performance and all the dangers of hitting the deck at flying speed praying for a hook-up with the wire).

The Americans were beginning to use the nose tow catapult launch method in the 60s and it made sense to incorporate this into the P1154RN from the start. The P1154RN would alsop have been able to operate from existing RN carriers without modification (unlike the F-4 Phantom), but the increasing weight of the aircraft during development was it’s real downfall, necessitating the use of plenum chamber burning (PCB, effectively an afterburner fitted to the forward cold air nozzles to increase thrust) during landings and vertical takeoffs. The Hawker test pilots who had flown the P1127 knew this would cause horrendous damage to whatever they had to land on and the aircraft itself due to FOD and are on record as stating they were happy to use PCB in level flight, but never vertically.

One wonders if given the reduced size and weight of modern avionics compared to the 60s, as well as lighter construction materials, a modern day rendition of the P1154 could solve those problems and not require PCB in the vertical mode. In any case, it is a shame the aircraft never made it at least to the flying prototype stage as it’s contemporary the TSR2 did.

The potential problem with CATOVL is weight of the aircraft. You have the STOVL systems and you need a strengthened airframe for cat launches on top of that. That being said, with EMALS with concept could be used at far lower power when combined with the angled nozzles and a ski-jump Operationally, like you said, it does seem like the perfect set up.

Nope. Lightning all around.

If I’m not mistaken……….carrier born tanking is not a requirement for STOVL because no STOVL a/c can carry a refueling pod. i’m not too sure if thats going to be the case with the F-35B tho. The carrier born “tanker” on a CATOBAR ship would be the F-35C so I’m not really seeing where your argument is coming from. Granted this is the first I’v heard of it so if you could maybe expand on it I would be greatful.

No, the carrier tanker would be the F/A-18E since it has 5 wet hardpoints instead of 2 on the F-35B&C. Both the B&C (Yes, the B can use the pod on a wet hardpoint) would have to be set up like the S-3 with the refueling pod on one wing and an external tank on another…just with less fuel than the Viking or a Super Hornet.

as for STOVL recovering tanking, it theory its not needed with a vertical landing since the aircraft just touches down and multiple aircraft can touch down at once. That being said, the F-35B does use a lot of fuel in hover and with SRVL, it will have to be a more conventional landing pattern.

Harrier can’t carry a refuelling pod, but that doesn’t tell us anything about what F-35B can do.

Theoretically it can, there just hasn’t been a need to fit it with one.

Actually, I seem to remember that Naval ships and task groups *have* been commanded by Marine officers in a small number of instances in the recent past.

Can’t remember where I read it though…..

Marines cannot command ships as they do not have the training. Afloat, a Marine Brigadier General can command an ESG, a Marine Colonel can be the deputy commander of an ESG, and a Marine Colonel NA or NFO can command a Carrier Air Wing.

Bager,

Fair comment thanks. Of course I’m quite happy to take your word about the way things work at the coalface…what I was more trying to say was that CNO couldn’t decree that USMC would ditch STOVL and USMC would just have to wear that. In the same way that CMC is not in the chain of command to order a redirection of a CSG.

The way the DoN is interwoven, the Navy has quite a bit of defacto power. If it was their intention to kill off STOVL, the Corps would be fighting an uphill battle.

In this hypothetical world, what would happen if the USN axed the C?

Imagine the impact of that!? No one would be bothered outside of the US.

Does that make the whole thing more likely? With the B, you have the USMC, the UK and a string of very close allies that will be upset for decades.

Keeping the B and nixing the C would never happen.

The Marines will be fine, but they’ve been operating conventionally and off of non-STOVL ships for 100 years and every Marine fast jet pilot is trained in CATOBAR ops, even the ones flying Harriers. Between the British and Italian commitments to the Bravo, you’re looking at currently maybe 100 over 4-5 active squadrons. NAVAIR has to think about equipping the 30-35 squadrons currently flying Hornets and Harriers. If budget cuts come to pass, we’re not going to cripple naval aviation because London and Rome didn’t have a plan B when they passed much more extensive budget military cuts.

Why Sea Gripen, not Rafale?

Even though its a far less capable aircraft, BAE doesn’t have a stake in Rafale, they would have one in the SeaGripen.

That being said, given the past relationship with MDD, Boeing Might be willing to do a BAE produced F/A-18K/L. It should also be noted that the CAPTOR-E and the Ej230/270 engine upgrades from the Typhoon would fit.

I wonder how much it would cost to get EMCAT working & fitted.

About the same it took to develop EMALS, which is why EMCAT was dropped in favor of EMALS.

I honestly think the USAF will opt for BAe Hawks over the M-346. I just can’t see that happening. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the USAF figured a way to wrench another decade out of the aged T-38’s.

Hawk has little chance at T-X despite the Navy using a variant.