Don't worry, Fodders me lad, it's not written by a Shornet driver so by your own rules it doesn't count.

Lol, easy guys we all know what's syphoned the budget pity it's non operational.

Thought#1: If there had not been so many redundancies as a consequence of SDSR 10, and they had been handled differently, we would not have a shortage of naval personnel.

Thought#2: If the politicians had not interfered with the STOVL (F-35B) - CTOL (F-35C) - STOVL (F-35B) debacle we would have encountered much less difficulty.

Thought#3: They are RN fixed wing Pilots already flying a variety of aircraft. Like future RAF F-35B Pilots, they do need training from scratch. UK Pilots are preparing to fly it.

Thought#4: The F-35 has had more public and media scrutiny than most aircraft or other projects. Surely every significant project has had significant issues?

Thought#5: See the eloquently worded and diplomatic post by Engines on another thread.

Surely every significant project has had significant issues?

Well, yes, except:

- The delays and overruns are of extreme magnitude
- None can be ascribed to political choke-holds on the budget. Yes, production has been delayed, but delayed to match the slipping availability date of an operational aircraft
- As often happens, a stable end-date to development is hard to come by. The 2011 review moved the goalposts by identifying 3i as the AF IOC configuration, prior to formal IOT&E; today, while 3F is the end-of-SDD point, users seem to be regarding Block 4 as the first production configuration that will not require early retrofit for systems that have become dated during the long development.

I see Japan has commisoned her second big "Destroyer" - from janes - 2 years after launch - pretty impressive

The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) commissioned its second Izumo-class helicopter carrier, JS Kaga (DDH 184), on 22 March in a ceremony held at the Japan Marine United (JMU) shipyard in Yokohama, near Tokyo. The first of class, JS Izumo (DDH 183), was berthed adjacent to Kaga during the event.

Built by JMU and launched in August 2015, Kaga is 248 m long, has a beam of 38 m, and will displace 24,000 tonnes at full load. Powered by four GE LM2500 gas turbines in a COGAG arrangement, it is estimated to have a top speed of 30 kt, according to Jane's Fighting Ships . It will have a complement of 520 officers and enlisted men.
The two Izumo-class vessels are the largest warships to enter Japanese service since the Second World War.

Although classified helicopter-destroyers by the JMSDF, these vessels have the appearance of a carrier rather than a destroyer. The flat-top is designed to operate helicopters in various roles.

Kaga is expected to embark a mix of Mitsubishi-Sikorsky SH-60K Seahawk anti-submarine warfare helicopters and AgustaWestland/Kawasaki MCH-101 for mine-countermeasure operations.

The JMSDF also anticipate using the ship for disaster relief, not only to deploy helicopters and personnel but also to exploit its capabilities as a command platform.
The armament of Kaga is limited to short-range self-defence systems, with two Raytheon Sea RAM missile systems and two Vulcan Phalanx multibarrelled 20 mm guns.
Kaga is the first Japanese naval ship to take that name since the Second World War aircraft carrier that took part in the Pearl Harbor attacks and was lost at the Battle of Midway.
In addition to the Izumo class, the JMSDF have two smaller 18,000-tonne helicopter-destroyers of the Hyuga class, which are capable of carrying up to 10 helicopters. Three 14,000-tonne Osumi-class tank landing ships (LST) are also flat-tops that can operate helicopters, but have no hangar facilities.

Alert 5 » Royal Navy not getting V-22s for its new carriers - Military Aviation News

In a written parliamentary reply to Lord West, the British government said it has no plans to buy the V-22 tiltrotor for its Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

The Ministry of Defense will “continue to explore a variety of options to augment the capabilities” of those warships instead.

So buddy refuel around the floating airfield.... £££kerching..

Not sure that's feasible on a couple of grounds.

Firstly, the DoD said several years back that any nation wanting a buddy-buddy capability would have pay for all development and trials as the US forces had no requirement. As far as I am aware, nobody did.

IIRC I postrd a link here several years ago when, during the F-35B weight reduction programme, LM were given a contract to remove all the pipework given the weapon stations a "wet" capability - so you can hang weapons on them, but not fuel tanks.

The Ministry of Defense will “continue to explore a variety of options to augment the capabilities” of those warships instead.

OK here goes nothing, while it is best to keep a Carrier off shore in blue water for defensive reasons many places around the world like the Gulf make that impossible or difficult. Given that our carriers are late, will have a few F35s and not a huge amount of hitting power a suggestion.

Why not send the carriers to sea with the British Army's MLRS system on board? It has a reach of 70km, can use guided munitions and can accurately hit shore based targets. It might also have a useful defensive role against surface ships seeking to attack the carrier group. MLRS weighs about 24 tonnes the ships two lifts can lift 2 F35s each. The decks of the carrier are heat resistant to cope with the F35 so MLRS hardly likely to do more than scorch them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_M..._Rocket_System

The anti-fouling paint is fouled:

Paint Problems For Royal Navy's New Aircraft Carrier | Forces Net

Pilots begin flights in new F-35 Lightning II simulator in preparation for trials on carrier 29 Mar 2017
PHOTO: http://www.baesystems.com/en/downloa...4594294849.jpg (116Kb)

F-35 QEC integration simulator trials | BAE Systems | International

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...M.jpg~original

"The bespoke £2M simulator facility offers a 360-degree immersive experience for pilots"

presumably it throws them into a tank of cold sea water if they get it wrong.........

That will teach them not to paint enamels on top of acrylics.

V-22 (or not)
 

Interestingly Lord West's question made no mention of the QEC, but rather asked if the MoD had considered buying the V-22 for SF. Classic example of not answering the question...

Nick

Nick, I'm afraid you have to take the context. Check the questions asked, all on 14 Mar by Lord West. HL6055, 56, and 59 all refer to operations involving QE carriers and V-22. Only HL6057 and 58 don't mention QE directly, but the response is valid in the context of how the bracketing questioning develops. Earl Howe uses the same response to this entire questioning thread, because he knows where LW is going with this.

In a nutshell, "look at all these reasons why a V-22 on QE would be amazing....". Earl Howe: "We don't have the money...."

Part of the question about AAR support of carrier Ops is the problem of becoming tanker dependent. If the F-35 were to rely on AAR refuel to be able to land safely back on the carrier, or some other destination, then that represents a considerable risk. Likewise, a Terminal tanker over the carrier is something of crisis management. Returning F-35 have to have sufficient fuel to return anyway, would anyone be happy for F-35's to drop into the drink due to AAR failure? A key component of whether some after take-off AAR would be worthwhile is, how much usable tankage would the stealthy F-35 actually have with a mission load/fit? It is not the same as an F18 with big tanks that carry quite a bit of external fuel and weapons. It can't be much because the V-22 tanker doesn't carry much. :uhoh:

OAP

OAP, one of the benefits of STOVL recoveries is assured landing, providing you have the performance. As such, STOVL Ops don't need a buddy-buddy AAR asset in the overhead, unlike Cat and Trap Ops where there is a much higher relative chance of a "bolter" or "wave off" with low fuel. The comfort blanket of a tanker to calm the nerves, try a few more times, or "go to the beach" is therefore ingrained in the big deck psyche. For good reason too! STOVL is a different game in many respects. F-35B doesn't let you slow below a min performance airspeed and it will show you that predicted min speed too - if it's zero then it calculates you can hover so go ahead and shoot the approach. If it's 100kts you need to burn down or shift weight via jettison. If it's 50-60kts go for a Shipborne Rolling VL, which is extremely gentile and easy to fly. Ultimately it is a world apart from a 120kt approach out of the goo, trying to catch a wire on a pitching/yawing/heaving greasy deck.

Your point on fuel quantity is also important. V-22 doesn't carry enough to be a viable AAR asset for projection operations. So, much like today's USN fleet, to get real range and endurance, you RV with a real (land-based) tanker and fill your 2/4/8-ship to the Gunwhales before going downtown.

The USMC like the V-22 tanker concept with eventually 10K of give away as per:
SEAPOWER Magazine Online 29 Mar 2017

Hi Spaz,

I guess that means that the V-22 has instantaneous 4k available after t/o? WOWEE! I don't want to rain on your parade but, serious tanker planning starts at 100k avail. What level of capability are our £$Billions buying here? :bored:

OAP