Originally Posted by
WE Branch Fanatic
Also the extra manpower needed for catapults and arrestor gear, the lack of steam, the desire to have a common aircraft for RN and RAF, and for it to be possible for the carrier to be rapidly reinforced, and training issues (CTOL has a huge training burden).
I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
Steam? How very 19th Century! Surely EMALS is the way ahead and it also reduces the ships compliment as it needs less to service the antiquated steam hydraulics? Also, the unit cost of buying C models would go well below the B if we were buying some Cs - thus offsetting the £2bn retrofit? Plus the C has a better payload and range.
As for VTOL not needing a tanker to hold off until the ship is in suitable viz, I can recall the SHars having to divert to mainland Italy during DENY FLIGHT as their through-deck cruiser was socked out in sea fog. Luckily they were steaming close to friendly airbases.
Nope the lack of cats and traps was a significant issue that has cut down even further the choice of aircraft we can embark - it’s really F35B and helicopters or nothing. Pretty expensive for effectively a helicopter carrier!
Still it’s spilt milk now...
