lukosIs that really a realistic option? IIRC, the high temperature might spall most of the runways out there, not to mention FOD concerns. Not sure if these helicopter carriers would face similar spalling problems and would require some modifications to allow for F-35B take-off/landing (e.g. installing the special landing pads or hardening the existing ones) which obviously takes time and money and thus needs to be planned and performed ahead of the potential emergency.
Yeah, it’s pretty realistic.
I’m ok with the current solution, it is a financially sane & flexible solution even,
being able to draw pilots from AF should the need arise: except the critical issue of AWACS !
UK is going to need to make a few Osprey AEW or they won’t be able to get those carriers into a hot environment
Lot’s of other options. For high altitudes, the Artisan radar can probably see further than an AEW 1,000km ahead of it and you also have OTH capabilities. Equally the APG-81 can probably match many legacy AEWs and you also have land based AEW support, satellites and maritime surveillance drones. With the advent of stealth threats and long range AAMs, AEW aircraft are just big targets.
lukosWait, what?… Yorkshire have Televisions? Wow, Internet, Television… They’re catching up.
The North East is the only net exporter of manufactured goods in the UK. Perhaps those of you down south should try it instead of being mainly concerned with perpetrating global financial fraud.
lukosSo, basically you’re agreeing to what he [Halloweene] stated earlier, albeit with a little play on words and insults in an attempt to hide where you screwed up. *Very slow & long winded applause for you there.*
Nope. There’s a difference between cost being the only factor and being a factor. It is always a factor but was far from the only factor. The military didn’t want the F-35C when all capabilities were considered.
Quite frankly they would have had the flexibility to operate Rafale, Super Hornets, Sea Typhoon (if developed), Sea Gripen (also if developed), or F-35 in either naval flavor. Plus any other legacy aircraft including E-2 Hawkeyes. The project lead allowed shenanigans to prevent catapults ever being added knowing full well his decisions had consequences. These are not dumb and naive engineers.
PoW and QE II will never be as capable as its French sister ship no matter how one tries to spin the realities.
Except for the fact that it’s larger and can operate more planes. But yes, we designed it to increase our capability and chose a fighter to increase our capability. We could comfortably have afforded one cat-equipped aircraft carrier instead but ultimately two STOVL carriers are a greater contribution to NATO.
A US Super Hornet or F-35C landing on a QE Class? So are you expecting the US to run out of carriers or something?:highly_amused:
Sea Gripen – basing a design on a maybe?
Sea Typhoon – never going to happen.
Halloweene’s comments were in relation to the choice of the F-35B over the F-35C (as is the thread title). I feel that’s been twisted into an argument about carrier types, which isn’t how the conversation started.
lukosSwerve, nice way avoiding ad hominem while basically informing a gent he’s acting like a dolt. We really need to ignore lukos.
Ch4 News has never mentioned the investigators being stopped by the SDF.
This is the only relevant link I could find on their site:
http://www.channel4.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-crash-site-investigators
The Malaysian Airlines team has to cover an area of nine square miles, which is how far the wreckage of the disaster was spread when Flight MH17 fell out of the sky on Thursday, killing 298 people.
Surrounded by volatile pro-Russian rebels – the very people accused of shooting down the plane in the first place – the investigators look nervous, and fair enough. They have a large and difficult task ahead, and as they began, loud explosions were heard on the outskirts of Donetsk, some 40 miles from the site.
Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed leader of the breakaway Donetsk region, Alexander Borodai, posed with MH17’s flight recorders or black boxes, as he handed them over to international authorities. The recorders will now be sent to Britain for further investigation.
Have a look yourself:
http://www.channel4.com/news/search/?coreSiteName=news&freetext=air+crash+investigators
Funnily enough it’s Kiev that has now reduced the safe zone round the site from 40km to 20km.
http://rt.com/news/175136-kiev-sabotaging-investigation-plane/
Perhaps you should check your facts. Only Yahoo monkey news has suggested rebels were manipulating the crash site, stealing black boxes and prohibiting entry. The wealth of wreckage gathered thus far, along with the handing over of the black boxes, proves the aforementioned claims false to anyone with an ounce of non-mushroom sense.
lukosBut when would all that interoperability be put to use in practice? The French one would be more like a defense partnership IIRC and thus bears much more weight. Not to mention that not having a catapult severely limits the types of planes which can be used (no AEW, refueling aircraft, etc.), not to mention the reduced weapons and fuel (and thus range) payload.
But this was all discussed ad nauseam probably.
Think about all round flexibility. Unprepared runways and short hop front-line VTOL or emergency VTOL from helicopter carriers. We have to make the purchase incompatible with a lot of carriers just to allow the Rafale to operate from 2 ships. I’m actually curious as to how much take-off length a Rafale needs anyway. Could it take off with a light fuel load and then refuel directly after take-off?
The F-35B also has a smaller size/wingspan, so there’s a possible slight advantage wrt RCS over the F-35C.
lukosNorway and Denmark AF depleted their A2G ammo during the Libya conflict.
But it may been a calculated move, cause then their would get newer and better ammo ordered up. 🙂
Weapons have a shelf life. If you don’t use them, they become waste.
lukosIt seems that I’ve seen things you’ve missed, despite them being reported in the national British press, & on all the free to air UK TV channels, both terrestrial & satellite. They were also reported on various non-UK English language channels – but not RT.
I fear you’re projecting your own problems onto others. Do you only watch RT up there? :highly_amused:
I’ve not seen them on the Ch4 News and I always watch that. Perhaps you could find it for me. I did hear various conspiracy theories about the black boxes being taken over to Russia, but when they were handed over by the SDF, they were inspected and no tampering had taken place.
What is amusing on RT is watching clips of Matt Lee constantly destroy whichever woman the US government happen to appoint as the official spokesperson until they eventually get replaced. Like that ginger dummy they had for a while.:highly_amused:
lukosWhy would i be bitter? I am sorry UK didn’t get CATOBAR and F-35 C instead of B. I am also sorry because it means our carriers won’t be really interoperable (at the moment we expect, both UK and Fr to have a common use of carriers)
I won’t go dig for hours internet to get that video for you. But it is available. Sir Peter Ricketts. Nov 13th 2012. He said very interesting things about Lancaster House treaty and the use of carriers btw. The complete video is not anymore on Assemblée Nationale site, but you can search and ask for it by mail on their site (hint : use that date and “Patricia Adam” as name, here http://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/recherche.html). Do your homework instead of attempting to discredit people (an old troll tactics).
You are getting tiring. Whatever your link says, Mr Ricketts said it was a cost issue. Btw, isn’t CATOBAR scheduled using EMALs for QE class MLU? Or did that also change?
I’m well aware of that but cost wasn’t the sole issue, it was predominantly capability.
The F-35Bs will be interoperable but the Rafale M won’t. There are far more pressing things requiring expenditure besides catapults right now, like the Type 26 frigates and Vanguard replacement. There’s also the issue of strike length VLS for the Type 45s. I wouldn’t hold my breath wrt cats on the QE class.
lukoswell, i’m expecting B to be more prone to failures, so how it ends up in sortie rate is yet to be seen
The sortie rate generation estimate is based on the Harrier. Can’t see it being less reliable than that. You also have to weigh it against catapult and arrester reliability. Folding and unfolding wings, taxiing after landing, setting up catapult, setting up arrester etc., all time consuming.
He did and i don’t need any of your stupid comments. Were you there? I was. BTW he was part of the commission…
Oh great, so we have the word of a bitter Rafale fanboy to go on. You’ve got me convinced. This seems to be a thing for you. No official sources to view, hearsay, conjecture and pilot stories, often with changing distances and parameters from one telling to the next. Either link something to prove your statement or desist from thread wrecking. Just because you’ll only have one aircraft carrier, there’s no need to be jealous.
Cost is always a factor but as my above link clearly shows it isn’t the only one. There’s no point paying more and getting less. It’s a case of smart procurement.
lukosThis may come as a surprise but I bet all the regions have SAMs in them, both SDF held and Kiev held. That someone sees one going down the road merely proves that there is a war in progress.
lukosThen it has to be true . After all these are the same guys who found WMDs in Iraq .
And tried passing off pictures from Iraq as pictures from Syria.
lukoswell, i’m expecting B to be more prone to failures, so how it ends up in sortie rate is yet to be seen
Expect what you like, that is the prediction based on currently available knowledge. You ignore catapult and arrester gear reliability in your crude assumptions, as well as deck space. There is also the time constraint involved with using such contraptions.
lukosLast year i heared an audition of UK ambassador in France. The guy is the former head of procurement in UK. He clearly stated that it was due to costs.
No he didn’t. Would you like an onion or some garlic to cure your bitterness?
lukosOver the pond? :highly_amused:
Seen on the BBC & Channel 4, read about in the British press.
I haven’t seen anything here in Yorkshire.
You should try watching a larger variety of news channels, otherwise you’ll develop mushroom syndrome.
lukosthis is where its at, on top of AF improvised runway capability
The STOVL JSF greatly reduces the training and currency requirement for fixed-wing operations afloat. This increases commensurately its ability to be adopted and employed jointly as the Air Force is no longer excluded from non-land-based operations.
Hopefully you also saw the bit about sortie generation rate, deck space and sea state. From the above:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-12.htm
The service was an avowed proponent of STOVL on account of, amongst other things: better sortie-generation rates; reduced aircraft impact on overall platform size and cost; and the ability to operate in higher sea states.
Fewer aircraft require less hangar space, fewer maintenance and support personnel, and for STOVLs, fewer ship systems to support them and a much smaller air department. STOVLs require 30% less deck space for operations, which leads to increased operating efficiencies. Those efficiencies allow generation of more sorties given equal mission performance. For example, STOVL aircraft can generate 30% more sorties than CTOL aircraft for targets out to 400 nautical miles, and 15% more for ranges to 700 nautical miles. The affordable combination of multiple missions within one hull design can become a reality based on our emerging technology.
Sign In
