No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe not, but what about the Falklands?
Is the same mistake being made 40 years later.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
You have brought a debate about two great aircraft and an amazing British victory into a thread which is dedicated to a story so desperately sad that you couldn't script it.
It is akin to playing sevens and having beers at a funeral.
Please take your two legendary aircraft and hard fought battles and leave us to weep.
(Then again...might all turn out to be rubbish...I'm backing the C! Come along David, you can do it!)
You have brought a debate about two great aircraft and an amazing British victory into a thread which is dedicated to a story so desperately sad that you couldn't script it.
It is akin to playing sevens and having beers at a funeral.
Please take your two legendary aircraft and hard fought battles and leave us to weep.
(Then again...might all turn out to be rubbish...I'm backing the C! Come along David, you can do it!)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Still they did a good job didn't they?
Rgds SOS
P.S. I must go to bed soon - oh no the suns just coming up and radio 4 is on. I can't get any sleep now!!
Rgds SOS
P.S. I must go to bed soon - oh no the suns just coming up and radio 4 is on. I can't get any sleep now!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
ORCA
Hi, Orca. Sorry to learn that you are weeping.
I had quite a lot of beer at the last funeral I went to - it was a mate of mine who had served about 20 years in the Harrier force.
The whole point of this thread is which type of aircraft should be deployed from the future carrier. It's going to be the F35 but which version?
I had quite a lot of beer at the last funeral I went to - it was a mate of mine who had served about 20 years in the Harrier force.
The whole point of this thread is which type of aircraft should be deployed from the future carrier. It's going to be the F35 but which version?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was trying to make is the decision seams entirely political with little regard for the best solution just like in the 1970's. Of coarse the chaps did well in 1982 23 - nil speaks volumes on that.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Dat581
I fully appreciate your point Dat. I suspect that the decision is more fiscal than political.
P.S. I still want to go to bed but it is now definitely daytime - the birds are singing outside my cottage - maybe I'll have a nap later on.
Rgds SOS
P.S. I still want to go to bed but it is now definitely daytime - the birds are singing outside my cottage - maybe I'll have a nap later on.
Rgds SOS
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amazes me that after all this time politicians don't realsie that making ANY change to an initial spec it the defence business allows the contractors to drive a cart & horses through the budget (aided & abetted by the respective service)
A design engineer I knew always used to say the British engineering firms all relied on variation orders to make money
A design engineer I knew always used to say the British engineering firms all relied on variation orders to make money
Now confirmed by Philip Hammond:
Underlying facts upon which the earlier decision was made have changed. 2023 was the earliest at which EMALS could be fitted - the estimated cost has more than doubled in the last 17 months with possibility of further increases.
F35 STOVL programme has made excellent progress in recent months; the balance of risk has changed, so that F35B poses no greater development risk than other JSF variants.
'Cats and traps on a single carrier was the right decision on facts made at the time'. However, the delay in the programme for 2020 was unacceptable.
Both carriers will now be completed to operate STOVL versions of the F35; order for JSF will now be changed to F35B. First production F35B should be delivered in 2016, to fly from HM Queen Elizabeth in 2018 after her sea trials in 2017. Force to be operational in 2020.
Underlying facts upon which the earlier decision was made have changed. 2023 was the earliest at which EMALS could be fitted - the estimated cost has more than doubled in the last 17 months with possibility of further increases.
F35 STOVL programme has made excellent progress in recent months; the balance of risk has changed, so that F35B poses no greater development risk than other JSF variants.
'Cats and traps on a single carrier was the right decision on facts made at the time'. However, the delay in the programme for 2020 was unacceptable.
Both carriers will now be completed to operate STOVL versions of the F35; order for JSF will now be changed to F35B. First production F35B should be delivered in 2016, to fly from HM Queen Elizabeth in 2018 after her sea trials in 2017. Force to be operational in 2020.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now confirmed by Philip Hammond:
Both carriers will now be completed to operate STOVL versions of the F35; order for JSF will now be changed to F35B. First production F35B should be delivered in 2016, to fly from HM Queen Elizabeth in 2018 after her sea trials in 2017. Force to be operational in 2020.
Both carriers will now be completed to operate STOVL versions of the F35; order for JSF will now be changed to F35B. First production F35B should be delivered in 2016, to fly from HM Queen Elizabeth in 2018 after her sea trials in 2017. Force to be operational in 2020.
2023 was the earliest at which EMALS could be fitted
WTF Over?
Second production set of EMALS was allegedly secured by Fox and GA are supposed to be able to deliver in 2016.
Oh well, two ships operational.......for now.
WTF Over?
Second production set of EMALS was allegedly secured by Fox and GA are supposed to be able to deliver in 2016.
Oh well, two ships operational.......for now.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all appears to be about cost savings as opposed to operational needs and here I am again querying costings. When this first carrier deploys with its wing of F-35b aircraft the battle group will be reliant on the venerable Sea king for AEW coverage.
The carrier is deployed to regions where it needs to be able to not only project power, but also protect itself from any type of enemy threat. What duration does the Sea King have and how many will deploy with this battle group? As soon as I start asking these questions I am told that BAe are developing a replacement aircraft which will be operational before our first carrier becomes operational.
I am listening to Mr Hammond talking and at the moment he is criticising the Labour party for ordering 65,000 ton carriers without cats and traps... He is calling it lunacy and I agree, it is lunacy and remains so. It is lunacy to commission carriers with no tanking capability, no air EW and a very limited AEW ability.
Are we now going to spend far more money developing the MASC system for the STOVL carriers as opposed to simply buying the E2 off the shelf? How much money is going to be spent developing this system compared to EMALS conversion? When the Merlin eventually becomes operational will its operating systems compare with that of the E2? Are we developing a system that is better that that of the E2? The RAF quite correctly operates the excellent Sentry aircraft, would they be happy if that cover was not available and all they had was the trusty old Sea King?
I have always said having carriers is going to be expensive and if we cannot afford the best, we should not play games by getting an inferior product. This is an inferior product and listening to the grilling Mr Hammond is getting I would say it is very much deserved.
Not a Boffin
Will the new carriers operate the Chinook as Hammond is claiming they will deploy with them?
The carrier is deployed to regions where it needs to be able to not only project power, but also protect itself from any type of enemy threat. What duration does the Sea King have and how many will deploy with this battle group? As soon as I start asking these questions I am told that BAe are developing a replacement aircraft which will be operational before our first carrier becomes operational.
I am listening to Mr Hammond talking and at the moment he is criticising the Labour party for ordering 65,000 ton carriers without cats and traps... He is calling it lunacy and I agree, it is lunacy and remains so. It is lunacy to commission carriers with no tanking capability, no air EW and a very limited AEW ability.
Are we now going to spend far more money developing the MASC system for the STOVL carriers as opposed to simply buying the E2 off the shelf? How much money is going to be spent developing this system compared to EMALS conversion? When the Merlin eventually becomes operational will its operating systems compare with that of the E2? Are we developing a system that is better that that of the E2? The RAF quite correctly operates the excellent Sentry aircraft, would they be happy if that cover was not available and all they had was the trusty old Sea King?
I have always said having carriers is going to be expensive and if we cannot afford the best, we should not play games by getting an inferior product. This is an inferior product and listening to the grilling Mr Hammond is getting I would say it is very much deserved.
Not a Boffin
Will the new carriers operate the Chinook as Hammond is claiming they will deploy with them?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Angels 20 and climbing
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Analysis here of the switch - including reference to Grand Old Duke of York's decision-making skillset...
http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/05/10/what-a-carrier-on/6788/
http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/05/10/what-a-carrier-on/6788/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
F35 STOVL programme has made excellent progress in recent months; the balance of risk has changed, so that F35B poses no greater development risk than other JSF variants.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Have the MoD budgeted for boots with flaps on now that the Harrier Mafia have their favoured replacement?
Well the decision is made. Now the UK needs to get on with the job, get the ships built, get the crew trained and get some aircraft onboard. The Sea King will be going out of service in 2016 and MASC will be provided by another rotary platform in the short term, most likely Merlin, which whilst an improvement on Sea King, will still be restricted in range. The ships will not only carry F35B but also be able to operate Rotary Wing including CH53 and VH22. The advantage will also be that the Chinook can be put in the hangar with rotors spread, so the ground crew will no longer be struggling to do maintainence in sub zero temps/high heat/high winds.
The main issue will be that the RN and the RAF must stop tearing each over apart over what amount to several dozen pilots. I understand the RAF's focus on bums on seats and that no-one except fast jet pilots can be remotely capable of leading the Air Force and the RNs wish to get back into the business of projecting (naval and air) power across the globe. To be operationally effective and justify the expense of the capability, the F35B must operate at sea for most of the time. The method of operation that JFH utilised, might well be good for a land campaign such as the Stan, but for virtually every other scenario, the two services must get the best out of the ships. It is not important what colour uniform the stick-mokeys wear. What is important is that the capability of Carrier Strike is not attenuated by a desire to keep the aircraft 'landside' for the majority of the time.
These two ships, together with their air groups, will protect the interests of the UK for decades to come. They will have the ability to promote the friendly face of the UK (yes cocktail parties etc), promote UK business but also use a big stick by (apologies to Sean Connery) 'schitting of their coascht and lischening to their rock and roll' and when the time comes to project force, without worrying if the locals are going to let you fly from their airfields.
The first crews join QE next year I believe. I for one look forward to the UK making a success of the ships and the aircraft, recovering a capability that was lost in 1979 and the lack of which, has limited our contribution to protecting the UK's interests ever since.
The main issue will be that the RN and the RAF must stop tearing each over apart over what amount to several dozen pilots. I understand the RAF's focus on bums on seats and that no-one except fast jet pilots can be remotely capable of leading the Air Force and the RNs wish to get back into the business of projecting (naval and air) power across the globe. To be operationally effective and justify the expense of the capability, the F35B must operate at sea for most of the time. The method of operation that JFH utilised, might well be good for a land campaign such as the Stan, but for virtually every other scenario, the two services must get the best out of the ships. It is not important what colour uniform the stick-mokeys wear. What is important is that the capability of Carrier Strike is not attenuated by a desire to keep the aircraft 'landside' for the majority of the time.
These two ships, together with their air groups, will protect the interests of the UK for decades to come. They will have the ability to promote the friendly face of the UK (yes cocktail parties etc), promote UK business but also use a big stick by (apologies to Sean Connery) 'schitting of their coascht and lischening to their rock and roll' and when the time comes to project force, without worrying if the locals are going to let you fly from their airfields.
The first crews join QE next year I believe. I for one look forward to the UK making a success of the ships and the aircraft, recovering a capability that was lost in 1979 and the lack of which, has limited our contribution to protecting the UK's interests ever since.
Have just listened to Hammond's video for the MoD, which appears to suggest that the ACA had completed the costing work and that the capability presumably meaning F35C (as opposed to the EMALS system) could not be delivered until 2023.
I remain convinced that the conversion costs must have all sorts of stuff clagged into them. It simply is not possible to absorb between 12 and 20M manhours converting the ships. However - it's done. As Widger says, we must get on with it and make sure it delivers carrier strike as opposed to a couple of weeks a year hopping on and off. If we get the second ship to operate on a one-up, one-off basis, then good stuff too.
However, there were a couple of jarring notes. The CEPP concept apparently requires operating helicopters and f/w at the same time - that sounds definitively like the end of LPH(RC). There was also some reference to being able to operate helos at the same time as f/w with STOVL, but not with CV. Fitting the rotor heads into a cyclic deck plan has always been difficult on CVN - however, they tend to have an awful lot more cabs to park on deck, limiting where helos can operate from. QEC even in CV configuration has a lot of deck area free, clear of the runway. Smells like looking for things to justify the decision, but only to be expected I suppose.
Glojo - no probs operating Wokka - although not the most deck friendly aircraft.
Widger - best definition of an aircraft carrier I ever heard was form Norman Friedman, who noted that "you don't buy a carrier to protect ships, you buy it to sit off a third-world sh1thole and threaten to burn it down".
I remain convinced that the conversion costs must have all sorts of stuff clagged into them. It simply is not possible to absorb between 12 and 20M manhours converting the ships. However - it's done. As Widger says, we must get on with it and make sure it delivers carrier strike as opposed to a couple of weeks a year hopping on and off. If we get the second ship to operate on a one-up, one-off basis, then good stuff too.
However, there were a couple of jarring notes. The CEPP concept apparently requires operating helicopters and f/w at the same time - that sounds definitively like the end of LPH(RC). There was also some reference to being able to operate helos at the same time as f/w with STOVL, but not with CV. Fitting the rotor heads into a cyclic deck plan has always been difficult on CVN - however, they tend to have an awful lot more cabs to park on deck, limiting where helos can operate from. QEC even in CV configuration has a lot of deck area free, clear of the runway. Smells like looking for things to justify the decision, but only to be expected I suppose.
Glojo - no probs operating Wokka - although not the most deck friendly aircraft.
Widger - best definition of an aircraft carrier I ever heard was form Norman Friedman, who noted that "you don't buy a carrier to protect ships, you buy it to sit off a third-world sh1thole and threaten to burn it down".