Originally Posted by
Asturias56
They panicked as the cost of the QE's shot up and cancelled the Cat & Trap option. They said it could be retrofitted later but the builders hadn't been consulted IIRC
Nope. What actually happened was :
1. CVF Variant D (what became QEC) was designed with adequate space, weight, power provision for installation of catapults and arrester gear. Worst case of EMALS/AAR or the old BS6 steam, plus DA2 used to size this. This included provision in the arrangement (primarily 2 deck, but some spaces on 8/9 decks) for the relevant kit, the electrical distribution system sized to accommodate EMALS and the overall structural arrangement set up to accommodate this. But only at basic design level (ie you know you've got the ability to fit it, but there has to be a lot of detailed design work conducted to sort out the relevant seatings, cable routes, fire protection etc etc). The detailed design work to do so was never contracted because the CTOL option was only for use in the event that the B was horrifically short or its KPP, or got canned. The working assumption was that STOVL would be the operating mode using the B.
2. Despite many issues the B continued to progress - even when on probation - and so the button on detailed design (which is heavy on design resource) was never pressed. The ships were (finally) contracted after years of prevarication by one G Brown Esq (contrary to popular myth - and only at the last minute when he desperately needed a bit of popularity) and once detailed design and production was underway that was BVT and Babcock resource committed. Because the B was looking better, no-one thought the CTOL detailed design effort was necessary.
3. By the time Cameron came along, fabrication was well underway and it would have taken a significant amount of time and resource to stop the job and start re-doing the detailed design. Time during which, a lot of the ACA production staff would have had nothing productive to do, while they waited for the new set of design info - all of which would have been chargeable to the contract. That additional cost and time taken was significant - sufficiently significant that it would have increased the overall cost significantly, delayed in-service date with a number of other knock-ons too. There were also one or two ITAR issues in getting access to sufficiently detailed EMALS/AAR information as well AIUI.
4. As it transpired EMALS itself was undergoing some development issues at the time, increasing the overall risk calculation.
All the above resulted in the risk balance remaining in favour of STOVL and the B. It will be interesting to see what responses come back to the RFI exercise. Much of this I suspect is being driven by two factors :
a) Perception of Crowsnest programme risk vs benefit (and potential need for a follow-on Merlin order to generate enough frames for all demands)
b) Desire to get some form of UCAV able to operate from QEC to increase mass and dovetail with Tempest (including not forcing a STOVL version thereof)
One other thing to note. If you're going to use CTOL mode, do it for the whole air wing. A mix of STOVL and CTOL (which is in effect what STOBAR is) really does complicate your deck operations and is probably teh worst of both worlds. Deck length and clearance for an arrested landing, coupled with the take off run required for STO really eats into your safe parking area, which means either fewer aircraft parked and hence less sorties - or more chockheads to respot more frequently. That's in addition to the badgers and shooters that you'd need to run the cats and arrester systems..