Harrier Dawn [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Bismark

3rd Dec 2014, 20:47

Just goes to show Richards understood fixed wing embarked aviation even less than Stirrup did. Small F 35 carriers would have been useless and UK expeditionary capability would left in a worse state than it is now. The QEs will be tremendous national assets and will eventually get the combat capability they need - most probably a routine mix of UK and USMC F35s.

NutLoose

3rd Dec 2014, 20:56

Did you read it?
He wasn't after an F-35 carrier, but a carrier to utilise the Harrier, because we were surrendering 70 odd Harriers for less than 45 F-35 aircraft, and the current carrier was an ideal compromise for the Harrier.
What scuppered it was the new carriers were already laid down and jobs were at risk.

Bismark

3rd Dec 2014, 21:48

I did read it. Carriers, whatever size, last for decades, harriers don't. Small carriers generate minimal capability - it is all about sortie generation rate. Clearly Richards did not understand this.

longer ron

4th Dec 2014, 05:56

But he did understand that the new carriers were too big to be put into the cul de sac of only being able to operate stovl aircraft... usually a large carrier will be able to handle all types of aircraft inc of course COD and AEW !

Bismark

4th Dec 2014, 11:21

Ron,

Don't think so. The size of the carrier is governed by the sortie generation rate required not whether it is STOVL or not. In fact STOVL aircraft can generate higher rates than conventional aircraft for the same size deck. With regards AEW this may well be provided in the medium term by long persistence UAV rather than current methods. COD is an issue but a crew of 1000-ish will require less COD services than one of 6500. As far as I am aware F35 support is a contractor responsibility?

LowObservable

4th Dec 2014, 11:36

I believe from reading the WiB review-of-the-review was that Richards did understand the SGR issue - but realized that the QEs could never get to their intended SGR with a 48-aircraft force.

This is the conundrum in SDSR 2015: particularly if UK goes to two carriers, substantially more JSFs will be needed. But unless the FJ force is expanded compared to SDSR 2010 plans, that may mean that the JSFs oust Typhoons - and more money for FJs is unlikely given the urgent needs of MPA in particular and ISR in general.

Not_a_boffin

4th Dec 2014, 11:48

What Richards was actually trying to do was kick the (QEC/F35) can down the road for a few years so that trying to start the carrier programme again from scratch would have been too expensive. Not least because there wouldn't be a "harrier" replacement aircraft.

Job done, cap badges saved, trebles all round.

The CVS is not an ideal compromise for the Harrier because it was never designed specifically to operate it. Any new design with a CVS-type TAG was shown by every single operational analysis study done from the earliest days of the programme as being not capable of delivering worthwhile effect against what it was being asked to do. A new ship design would not have been proportionally cheaper than QEC either, although the cost added by various VSO (of which Richards is the last in a long line) bleating about size would probably not have occurred.

And before anyone starts, while the current assumption for QNLZ & PoW is to have a squadron of 12 f/w aboard, that is not a physical limit, which is what a CVS style ship would have been.

Bismark

4th Dec 2014, 14:05

Am I right in saying that 48 was never a declared limit to the overall purchase of F35? I can't recall the 135-sh figure being walked back on. I thought the 48 figure grew out of a statement by SofS/PM saying that they would procure the 48 required to operate from the CVFs i.e. 2 RAF, 2 RN Sqns of 12 a/c. On top of that would be the trainers, trials and attrition reqt. But I stand to be corrected by someone with accurate knowledge.

Subsequent statements by the last SofS seemed to support this when he said that he would expect 12 a/c to be embarked whenever the ship left UK territorial waters, with larger numbers for work ups and high scale operations.

Not_a_boffin

4th Dec 2014, 14:23

AFAIK 48 has always been "the initial number we'll commit to out of the 138", which is very different to "the maximum we'll ever own".

It would not surprise me one bit to discover that the number has been derived against an aspiration to buy additional F35A (or even C) above that total against whatever the FOAS requirement is called these days. A proposal that ought to be staked in the heart at the earliest opportunity to avoid repeating the small fleets / FE@R/ tasking withdrawal cycles that ultimately did for JFH.

longer ron

4th Dec 2014, 18:11

Bismark...

For many varied/subtle/not so subtle reasons - the UK carrier has ended up painted into the corner of stovl only - which really is a wastful misuse of a carrier that size.
The F35b is going to be a bitch to maintain so sortie generation rates should be 'interesting' unless we buy lots of the things LOL.
We quite often end up paying Rolls Royce prices for fairly useless equipment - but it is fairly traditional I suppose ; )

Not_a_boffin

4th Dec 2014, 18:49

Another view is that in 25 years time, halfway through their life when the promised revolution in UCAV has failed to materialise and no-one dares do STOVL again, the ships can be converted to CTOL carriers. Without the complications of the TOBA, it may actually be a lot cheaper than folk think.....particularly as the power distribution software allegedly contains EMALS functionality already.....

TBM-Legend

5th Dec 2014, 01:02

Another good reason for Harriers [F-38B]:

This sounds boring, but it’s critical to the way the US Marines fight. Anywhere in the world, the Marine Corps can install 4,000 feet of AM-2 steel matting and begin operating its airpower. At the 2010 Battle of Marjah, for instance, the Marines expected a really difficult fight, and needed consistent close air support. All with limited aerial tanker support, and just 10 AV-8B Harrier jets based over 150 miles away, at Kandahar Airfield. That would mean too much flying back and forth, and not enough time over the battlefield. Instead, a 4,000 foot expeditionary airfield was built at FOB Dwyer, just 10 miles from the battle, as a forward arming and refueling point (FARP). Result? Just 30 minutes from departure to a fully-fueled return, and full close-support coverage thanks to a 4x aircraft sortie rate.

Bismark

5th Dec 2014, 06:02

Ron.

Such pessimism. Consider the rate of development of heavier than air machines in the 1900s. It is perfectly reasonable to expect rapid UAV development. Re RR engines - I have used them for 35 years and been quite content with them.

hulahoop7

5th Dec 2014, 06:59

Ocean will go soon. The QEs need to accommodate both F35 and AEW and ASW and the junglies. Even with only 12 F35 aboard (equivalent or more than was BAU for the Vinis) the decks will be BUSY.

Flap62

5th Dec 2014, 07:23

I think the debate on whether we will get 48 or 130+ F35 is rather academic given yesterday's announcement that future government spending will fall to levels comparable with the 1930s. Health, Pensions and Overseas development ring-fenced - hmmm, let me see, where will the cuts come from.

Wrathmonk

5th Dec 2014, 07:44

future government spending will fall to levels comparable with the 1930s

For the period 1930-1938 Government spending on Defence averaged at 9.67% (compared to the current 6%), although it did peak to 75% in the early 40's...! Start writing your wish lists.....;)

Written with my tongue firmly in my cheek as I'm fully aware we had neither an NHS or much of a welfare system to speak of then!

NutLoose

5th Dec 2014, 11:54

What I cannot get my head round is why do we need VTOL in the first place? I totally get it for a land based operations where you would be operating off unprepared strips in dispersed locations.
But surely the role of the Naval fighter is to protect the fleet and any landings that may take place, they would operate from a Carrier safely away from the beach head out of harms way and not normally deploy ashore.
Now the Sea Harrier I got, the ships they deployed from were not large enough to support conventional fixed wing aircraft, so the ability to VTOL was a requirement, but with these new Carriers they are sufficently large enough to carry conventional aircraft, to constrain them to simply carrying a VTOL type just seems to me as a retrograde step, as the ability to hover is really redundant with the capability the increased ships size brings.

salad-dodger

5th Dec 2014, 12:08

Well said NutLoose.

We are buying the right boats, but have then chosen to go the STOVL route. Means we end up with the wrong fighter/strike aircraft and constrain for ever the type of aircraft that can operate from our boats.

To cap it all, we will end up buying only a handful of F35.

Bonkers!

S-D

LowObservable

5th Dec 2014, 12:15

Some background as to why the Marines are looking at the QEs...

Marines Shift F-35 Deployment Plans | Ares (http://aviationweek.com/blog/marines-shift-f-35-deployment-plans)

salad-dodger

5th Dec 2014, 13:30

Some background as to why the Marines are looking at the QEs...

Marines Shift F-35 Deployment Plans | Ares

LO, all very interesting, but the way the USMC operates is of little relevance to the RN, RM & RAF. Actually, I suspect the USMC is bigger than those 3 combined.

We're not spendings squillions on those boats to carry the USMC. Any link up with the USMC will be a convenient way to get some jets on those boats and stop the RN being a laughing stock. It might even stop their shiny new toys being mothballed.

S-D

LowObservable

5th Dec 2014, 14:14

S-D - The F-35B is all about coalition ops - US commanders are very clear about this. I can see that the USMC will be very interested in two carriers that can sustain 30+ F-35Bs but only carry a dozen or so (at least until 2023-24) because the UK has only 48 jets in total. That's because the LHA/LHDs, as big as they are, have much less capacity for jets because of all the other stuff on board.

Remember, too, that the US has a vast element of control over partner F-35s, at all times.

salad-dodger

5th Dec 2014, 14:25

pretty much as I said then LO:
Any link up with the USMC will be a convenient way to get some jets on those boats and stop the RN being a laughing stock. It might even stop their shiny new toys being mothballed.

S-D

sandiego89

5th Dec 2014, 15:32

Some background as to why the Marines are looking at the QEs...

Marines Shift F-35 Deployment Plans | Ares (http://aviationweek.com/blog/marines-shift-f-35-deployment-plans)

Thanks for posting, Interesting. After reading I fail to see how this new M-FARP differs much from existing US marine corps concept of operations.

Seems the "new" CONOP is to fly the B's off the LHA/LHD to a forward operating base and shift every couple of days to keep the enemy guessing. This allows the LHA/LHD to stay further away out of harms way.
The USMC Harrier was always touted that they would be able to operate from farp's with just a bit of gas, weapons and a few wrenches (much like the early RAF concept). Always a big selling point, but in reality used infrequently in actual USMC operations. Outside of exercies, USMC Harriers usually operated ashore at well established bases with plenty of support.

Seems like this seems more like a re-branding, than a radical new FARP. With the LHA/LHD further away, and the need to move every 24-48 hours, this could be ploy to garner support for more MV-22's and King Stallions- the logistics of moving a major M-FARP every day would be massive.