PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Future Carrier (Including Costs)
View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2010, 09:36
  #2413 (permalink)  
Madbob
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm broadly in favour of the decision to replace the Ark and Lusty but think we should forget the F-35. It's far too expensive and we can't afford to buy enough of them to make the unit cost acceptable. (I wonder how many of our NATO allies will reach the same conclusion?)

It's far from proven and it will take a long time (and lots more money) before it matures into a true "bona" jet. The F-18 Super Hornet is a worthwhile contender but do we really need supersonic performance for a typical mission? I know it's got internal weapons and is supposed to be stealthy but I bet it will end up carrying external stores and be then limited to c. 600 kts or whatever.


My answer would be to opt for a conventional carrier design (with cats and traps) and instead adopt Ed Heinemann's approach when he (and Douglas) came up with the A4. i.e. something small, simple and therefore cheap enough to buy in quantity. ( It was even small enough not to need folding wings and it could still carry a decent payload.)

I'm not advocating opening the production line for more A4's but saying that a small bomb truck with say, a war load of 2 x 2,000 lb class LGB's (or various smaller weapons), an internal gun, ability to carry a short range IR AAM (or two) and a Sniper pod (or equivalent) plus EW and IR counter-measures.

The A4 could do most of these things though the Sniper pod was not one of them but it could do buddy tanking and recce.

The maxim has to be keep the airframe small, keep it simple and concentrate the new technology on the EW systems, sensors (link 16+) and a modern fuel-efficient but powerful (single) engine......that way we can afford to buy 100+ so if one goes "over the side" the loss is less than 1% of the inventory. At this rate, with F-35, if we lose one the loss would be >3% which is not sustainable!

A carrier with an air wing of 50 is also bound to be able maintain ac over target/on task and to generally to sustain ops for longer than air wing half that number. The added bonus is that by spending less (than would have been the case with F-35) there might even be cash to pay for 3 or 4 Hawkeye/COD ac, and even a T45 (Daring class) escort for mum.

MB
Madbob is offline