Al.Canards do not just provide lift leverage for’d for maneuverability. Perhaps those comments about EF not needing TVC because of its canards’ moment arm has sunk into the aviation enthusiast’s consciousness? Viggen for example used fixed canards (admittedly with trailing edge actuation) to energise the airflow over the main aerofoil.
Al.How many airworthy Buccs and Phantoms can we hoover up on th secondhand market?
(Only partly in jest)
Of course the F111 did eventually end up being a superb aircraft
Al.The Normans
Simples
By dint of Black Magic UK and France actually go for genuine common equipment (chosen on merit) and by doing so create a default standard for European NATO (and Canada possibly).
Thus as a minimum UK and France have two bidders for each system (one French one UK) and a bidder can afford to lose one contract as there will be another to win. Rather than having to back substandard designs to support industry or rationalise and end up with only one supplier
There are even some more successful collaborations
i.e.
Heavyweight Torpedo – Spearfish
ICBM – M1 to M2 to M45 (with Chevaline?)
Area SAM – Sea Dart
AAMs – Active Skyflash and Magic
SSN – T-boats
SSK – Agosta
ASM/SSM – Exocet
Strike CV – Clemenceau class (Clemenceau, Foch, Ark Royal, Eagle)
Escort CV – Invincible class (Invincible, Illustrious, Jean D’Arc, Richelieu)
Strike airframe – AFVG
Strategic bomber – Discorde (Concorde with weapons)
Unsure:
SSBN – ?
Point SAM – seawolf or Crotale Navale?
NGS – Mk8 or C/L 100mm?
ASW – Ikara or Malafon?
Al.Is there any slack in UK yards (well yard) to build any boats to sell to the Canadians? Even if a diplomatic charm offensive could be allied to a face-saving trade in for the Victoria class? I thought that as soon as Astutes are finished Barrow were going to retool for either Vanguard replacement or the strange Vanguard-Trafalgar combo replacement.
That would only leave second hand T boats and no matter how good the trade in deal on the four Upholders I cannot see that being popular.
So IFF Canada decides to go nuclear France seems the only game in town.
Al.Interesting. Re-raises the debate which briefly flared in the US when the CVF design, capability and costs first became known to the USN.
Would the USN be better off with 30 CVF type vessels than 10 Ford Class.
This is semi-educated guesswork but I suspect that the reason that the USN would be anti that idea is the same that the RN didn’t go for 18 smaller DDGs rather than 12 (now 6) T45s.
There is no guarantee that the same amount of money would be spent. It is entirely likely that if one of the armchair admiral’s cheaper T45 was chosen we still would have got 6. Likewise if US Congress go down to 10 CVNs what guarantee that they would not have gone down to 10 CVFs?
If one knows or suspects that the total number of units is going to be cut then it must be tempting to make sure that each of those units is as capable as possible.
Al.Stating the bleedin obvious politics and economics play a part
If by keeping the production lines in nations plural the ‘Tempest’ (I still prefer ‘Kamikaze’) can be made by
Not having a vertical stabiliser
TVC
Divertless inlet
LERXs
more RAM and RASH (are there any hotspots as yet untreated?)
Two seats*
Stealthy munitions**
AESA
next iteration of DASS
Then it’d make an ace UAV controller
* One crew to monitor the UAVs
** To get signature reduction without major structural changes for internal bays. I assume (and is assumption) that the reason that the likes SCALP and SDB have had treatment and AAMs have not is that the requirement for speed means a huge IR signature from exhaust and airframe heating and so radar shaping and treatment would be an expensive and easily countered waste of time.
Al.Whilst it is certainly true that history does not always repeat itself. Invincibles were ASW units with their own Area AAW capability. Then an existing technology (STOVL) was seen to offer a longer range counter or at the very least nuisance to an existing threat (long range Soviet land based MPAs).
Having a nice big flat deck helped with intense helo ops and coincidentally allowed them to embark a type of fixed wing asset (which handily had been trialled on bigger vessels earlier).
DDHs have a defined ASW role and are to be used in an environment every bit as potentially interesting as the North Atlantic. If/when Japan decides it has a need to operate advanced naval UAVs what better existing platform? Harrier showed that there are other ways of coming in low and slow than the methods used currently on UAVs. That does not mean that the Japanese decide on the same solution to a similar problem.
As an aside the obstruction to the take off over the bow on the DDHs doesn’t strike me as being any worse than Invincible in her first guise!
But you both may very well be right and Hyuga and Ise will just do a more efficient job of getting lots of helos to sea at the centre of ASW groups than their predecessors. Even so they would coincidentally provide experience with building, maintaining and operating large ships again.
For future light carriers operating Sea Gripen or similar I see the issue being deciding exactly what to include and what to leave off. Nations using such a beast will likely have less escorts than the USN and the uninformed (or underinformed) like to slate flat tops for lacking their own weapons but the more systems added the higher the cost, the easier for costs to escalate and the easier it becomes to kill the project.
Al.Not aircraft carriers though so they don’t belong in this thread.
Where does one wish to draw the line with semantics though?
The JMSDF call them ‘destroyers‘ not ‘aircraft carriers‘ true but helicopters are ‘aircraft‘ and they certainly carry helicopters so are ‘aircraft carriers‘.
Theoretically this could allow me to discuss OHPs as future light carriers (since they do an efficient job of taking two LAMPS to sea) but I won’t because that would be silly. Semantically correct or nay.
The JMSDF ‘Destroyers‘ are light aircraft carriers and would certainly make excellent launch and recovery platforms for UAVs. Which I SUSPECT is far more the plan than loading up with a few F35bs (although the fanpics do look wonderful and F35 lends itself to Japanese colours very well). This makes them very much in the running for a future light carrier. Admittedly not a Lindorm carrier.
Al.NATO standard I believe. So I would imagine that Russian pilots wouldn’t officially use them. No reason why individual pilots wouldn’t though.
Al.If the F/A-18E/Fs are solely for air defence – which means that they wouldn’t be needed if the carrier group wasn’t there in the first place – then the only strike capacity of the air wing – and most of the strike capacity of the Carrier Strike Group – is provided by just 24 F/A-18C/Ds.
Seems like the USN has to expend a massive amount of effort – and cost – to generate a relatively modest capability?
Interesting suggestion: I disagree somewhat.
The 24 F/A18s for strike is more than anyone else can do (anyone else who can embark 24 fastjets will need some for CAP or in circumstances where they do not need to neither does USN). Admittedly longer legs would be nice.
But more importantly IMMOO the Carrier Strike Group acts as a Carrier Strike GROUP. Yes the CVN is a nice big target and the priority for protection but its existence and presence enhances the effectiveness of the other units.
AEW allows a better picture for all units. So not all units need to have their nice powerful ‘here I am come and get me’ radars on all of the time. Which makes them less vulnerable. It also allows them to get into position to use their Harpoons, Tomahawks and NGS. Without AEW and CAP this is too dangerous (and either leads to extra losses or to them not being tasked in order to avoid those losses)
It also allows replenishment to be planned in a way which would not be possible without the bigger protected picture. Without the CAW one would not place any RFA’s (well spam equivalent) anywhere near to harm’s way as with.
The ASW assets may be mainly defensive (of the CVN) but allow other units’ PWO’s to prosecute contacts in a manner which they could not do if acting alone.
The alternatives seem seductively cheaper and more attractive.
Let’s use long range bombers instead (persistance? regional deterrence? engine failure? planning error with AAR?).
Let’s only use submersibles with missiles (vulernability when launching? magazine capacity?).
Let’s only use skimmers with missiles (vulnerability? limited battlespace picture?).
Let’s use other landbased units (what if Australia cannot actually be moved? How much AAR?)
If one ignores the slightly fruity language this has a nice summary http://www.arrse.co.uk/military-history-militaria/168602-anglo-libyan-war-1984-a.html
Al.Surely the solution is obvious and keeps all defence experts happy
F35a dies:
USAF sells its ‘old’ Raptors to Japan and Australia
Fortune spent re-opening Raptor prouction line and USAF gets original 700+ number of Raptors all with JSF electronics instead
USArmy gets the CAS mission but USAF gets a couple of squadrons of B1Rs to drop JDAMs from altitude
F35b and F35c are safe as they are the most expensive variants
Al.As opposed to a CNC machine? 😉
What a strange thing to say.
3D printers are undoubtedly Computer Numerically Controlled as opposed to handraulic or even Numerically Controlled (anyone else struggled to programme a sheet metal punch press by setting switches to enter hex code?)
But other CNC machines have different disadvantages (yes I can chop my design up into layers and then CNC lasercut but then I have to join the bits together or use a CNC milling machine to mill from solid but I need access to voids and must have surfaces to cramp onto).
Al.Exports dear boy exports.
France got 0% of the sales to UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria and Saudi
They’ve also had to spend to compete against EF for India (they’d have to spend to compete against others but as a proportion rather than total).
Given the previous masterful exports of Mirage seems a retrograde step to me.
Al.Not feasible, or that nobody thought there might be a demand for one ?
Bit of both.
FAA and RAF had no reason to even suspect that RN was going to get proper falt tops when EFA was in gestation and none of the other partners (other than our Gallic friends) either.
So the design was optimised for other things without even considering use from carrier. EF are now (well have been for a while) that fortuitously its handling characteristics make it suitable for another type of carrier operation.
When it comes to armchair policy and revisionism wishing that France had been more reasonable on industrial demands and thus could have been kept in the project so that EUROfighter became a multinational carrier-capable aircraft is pretty high on the wish list. EF members and France have all lost out.
Al.Good points all 3
Must be genuine technical merit then!
Sign In
