Baz,

Again mate you are looking no further than an individual aircrafts’ performance and thinking that is the extent of the capability. It is a wholly inaccurate assessment of what this is about.

If we want to have Fleet Carriers and police the worlds oceans then what you, and so many others here, are advocating is right. We would need CATOBAR, we’d need Hawkeye and wholly dedicated Fleet Air Arm airframes and pilots to operate them. If we had a requirement to perform that kind of operation we would have to have the defence budget commensurate with it.

We dont have that defence budget though. We have more pressing requirements of the defence budget we do have than to perform sea control over wide and uncontested tracts of ocean – which is what you all seem so intent on setting us up for!. We need to recaptialise the whole frigate fleet soon, we need to try and find money for Astute-8, we need investment in CEC, UAV’s, additional satellite bandwidth to bring our net-centricity and fleet ISTAR potential up to date.

Carrier Strike with CVF/STOVL is intended to, in peacetime, support a ‘golf-bag’ airgroup of perhaps a single dozen-airframe squadron of fastjets, plus Merlins, Chinooks, Apache’s and UAV’s supporting a comprhensive expeditionary EMF. Its role is to provide a fully organic, rapid-deployment capability for dealing with the multiple low-intensity threats that occur in routine peacetime conditions like Operation Palliser or Operation Highbrow. The ships STOVL airgroup allows for non deck-rated squadrons to rapidly deploy to the ship to have the vessel operating as a 100-sortie-a-day strike carrier within the length of time it takes to stage the squadrons to the ship and land ashore all those units unnecessary to the new tasking…..

But do you need a 70,000 ton carrier for that? Seems like a ship half the size or less would do.

I still have to wonder what payload you expect to take up in the air with a skijump-launched SeaGripen… Maybe I missed it, but to accelerate sufficiently in order not to sink into the sea immediately after take off with a heavily loaded aircraft, you’ll need a lot of thrust, lot more than a single F-414 can provide.

Now, the Su-33 with something like 25tons of thrust can take off from a carrier only lightly loaded meaning it has to keep his thrust/weight ratio >1.

the F-414 in the SeaGripen would provide about 10t of thrust. if the same rule applies (t/w >1) you won’t have much load onboard.

the gripen Ng is supposed to weigh 7.1t, a seagripen, with reinforced airfram would weigh a bit more… that would give you, what? 2-2.5t to play with? put some fuel inside so tanks don’t immediately run dry when you light the AB for take off and you don’t have any margin for weapons left.

make it catapult launched aorcraft, and it comes to play with the hornet and the rafale, which is not the same league anymore

Saab says the Sea Gripen is intended for both CATOBAR and STOBAR operations. “There will obviously be differences in the MTOW (Maximum Take-Off Weight). In a CATOBAR concept, the Sea Gripen will have a MTOW of 16,500 kilograms and a maximum landing weight of 11,500 kilograms. In a STOBAR concept it depends on the physics of the carrier. Roughly, the payload of fuel and weapons in STOBAR operations will be one-third less than the payload in CATOBAR operations. There will be no differences in ‘bring-back’ capability,” according to Peter Nilsson, Gripen’s Vice President of Operational Capabilities.

A further delay would probably suit the US Govt. They just can’t afford this sort of defence expenditure anymore, same as the UK and most other Western countries.

Sort of, but not really. Domestic politics would favor a US built aircraft of the same type and class before buying a foreign built airframe of similar capability that is not already in US service. But for now, the COIN turboprop is in limbo because the USAF has backed away from funding it – the fighter mafia doesn’t like the idea of programs competing for acquisition funds needed for the F-35. I’d like to see the Army (Navy/Marines) take on the program – it’s their guys who are doing the fighting and dying.

Agreed, but like I said, the Navy can’t get the money, the Air Force fighter jocks don’t want them, and the Air Force would fight tooth and nail to stop the Army taking on what it sees as its job. Meanwhile, like you say, it the boots on the ground that do the fighting and dying. 😡

I don’t think so.

A super Tucano is too slow to be quickly on station and lack the punch and psychological impact of a true figher. If a super Tucano was really adapted after a decade of CAS there already exist a serious request for this type of aircarft to to the job.
Attack helicopters are more efficient in this role and are complementary with fighter jets.

The F15E which is not really a lightweight fighter is doing most of the strike role in Astan. That is a big indication.

The Tornado is an exellent strike platform (I am just speaking of the aircarft, not systems of course) and exept for the first day war situation it will outperform the F35 and especially the B version.

Just like I am really wondering how can the F35 replace the A10.

So while the F35 is clearly ahead on the paper (more modern) I fear that the actual perception by the troop requesting support will not reflect the difference of modernity. In the end the aircarft that can remain above the longer with a the more punch will be prefered

The only reason the Super Tucano is not on test in Afghanistan now is US pork-barrel politics: a request for funding from the Navy was blocked by the Senator for Kansas, where Hawker Beechcraft are based. (They are developing the AT-6B in competition to the Super Tucano.)

Hope this isn’t a silly question, but if CVF was equipped with the Type 45’s Sapmson radar and Aster VLS, could it dispense with the need for an air-defence destroyer?

You don’t have to sink it, just damage it so it can’t fulfil its mission. War will be over by the time it’s repaired.