Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Not_a_boffin]

Glojo

The last ships with steam propulsion (standfast our nuclear subs) were built in the 60s. We haven't had a boiler room on anything since Fearless & Intrepid. QEC has electric propulsion, with gas-turbine and diesel generators.

As for F35, the Marine Corps variant (the risky one) is the STOVL F35B. F35C is a "normal"(!) aeroplane.

Your info re beam is flat wrong. Ark was 58m at her widest, QEC will be just shy of 70m.

Dr Lewis has been remarkably quiet for the last 18 months.....

[Modern Elmo]

U.K. Auditors Warn Of Program Risks | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/07/07/03.xml&headline=U.K.%20Auditors%20Warn%20Of%20Program%20Risks&channel=defense)

U.K. Auditors Warn Of Program Risks

Jul 7, 2011

By Robert Wall

LONDON — The U.K. government’s decision to change its approach on buying aircraft carriers and Joint Strike Fighters has added risks to the long-term program that are still not fully understood months after those changes were spelled out in the Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR), the National Audit Office warns.

...

Auditors also point to risks with using the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, in part because of risks in the overall U.S. program, and because the U.K. version would feature a two-rail rather than a four-rail system.[/COLOR]


Two rails, four rails? Whut dey talkin' 'bout?

[GreenKnight121]

The USN CVNs will have 2 catapults on the bow and 2 on the angle, while CVF will have 1 in each position.

4 vs 2... (for "rails" read "catapults").


As for "risk"...

EMALS is nearly done... between May 25 and June 9 they conducted 14 launches with F/A-18E, and 12 launches each with C-2As and T-45Cs.

More launches are scheduled this month, and launches with an E-2C will begin shortly.

Production and delivery of EMALS components is proceeding for the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78.

http://www.pprune.org/6534939-post26.html


One suspects a bit of "it wasn't built in the UK so it couldn't possibly work" in that report.

[Modern Elmo]

(1) I suspect that UK ends up buying some VSTOL F-35's for Queen E.

(2) Installing catapults in the second aircraft carrier -- they probably didn't leave enough volume and mass margin in the current design to do that, even if it's only two catapults instead of four.

It's much bigger than some sort of auxiliary power unit that might be bolted into a spare storage locker ... much more money and re-design work needed.

[Not_a_boffin]

ME

You wouldn't believe how much weight and space margin is in the design. There's plenty......

GK121, wouldn't disagree with you there. The chairwoman (chairthing?) of the PAC is also not the most technically competent person in the world....

[ORAC]

ARES: U.K. Audit on JSF: Concerns But No Calamities (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4345d899-bec4-4e9d-9079-f748c2d60e20&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The U.K.’s National Audit Office paints a mixed picture for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the U.K.

The auditors write that “the decision to buy the carrier variant of the JSF will deliver an aircraft with greater range, payload and the ability to stay over a target area for longer when compared to the STOVL variant” and also that it covers a requirements gap created when the Deep and Persistent Offensive Capability effort was scrapped last year to achieve ₤1 billion in savings.

But the outlook is not all rosy. The NAO also highlights concerns that remain about the F-35 purchase and integration of the fighter into U.K. inventory. The six risk areas are spelled out here (click to view larger version (http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/3/1ecc15a5-b48b-468f-b3b6-7ba663a5b0df.Full.jpg)):

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/3/1ecc15a5-b48b-468f-b3b6-7ba663a5b0df.Large.jpg

Beyond the F-35, the NAO also raises questions about technology risks linked with the anticipated move to the electromagnetic aircraft launch system, in part because of risks in the overall U.S. program, and because the U.K. version would differ with a two-rail rather than a four rail system.

[glojo]

Not a boffin,
Thank you very much indeed for correcting me ... I did think it strange how the newer ships would be narrower than the old Eagle class.

In my pathetic defence all I can say is I had a quick look on the dreaded Wikipedia at beam measurements of the Queen Elizabeth and FAILED to notice it was water-line width... My fault, my bad. (I blame my morphine medication) They are indeed big fat momma's :) I have a 66 - 67 Janes for the good old Ark Royal

I am showing my age by not realising the age of the boiler room was over and no doubt my brain has been influenced too much by all the brilliant documentaries about the United States nuclear carriers that have my boiler rooms. I would guess this makes the EMALS system the option to go for.

It is indeed the STOVL aircraft that is at risk and I am again guessing that this risk should not be under estimated...

Regarding Dr Lewis he is still going strong regarding Naval issues. The last documented question I have that he asked in the Commons is dated the 4th July 2011 but I cannot see any relevant period where he has kept quiet. :uhoh:

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): As we set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, under Future Force 2020 the future surface Navy will have a world-class carrier strike capability, with 19 frigates and destroyers, including the state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyer; an amphibious fleet able to land and sustain a commando group from the sea; 14 mine counter-measures vessels; a global oceanographic survey capability; and a fleet of resupply and refuelling vessels. Work is also under way on the requirements and design of the Type 26 global combat ship, our next generation frigate.
Dr Lewis: I am encouraged by that response. Does the Minister remember when he and I sat on parallel Opposition Benches under the previous Government as the size of the frigate and destroyer fleet went down successively from 35 to 32 to 31 to 25 and then to 19 (http://www.julianlewis.net/local_news_detail.php?id=67)? Will he specifically confirm that that figure of 19 frigates and destroyers will not be reduced to a pathetically inadequate baker’s dozen, as posited in some parts of the press?
Nick Harvey: I can certainly confirm that the situation remains unchanged from the SDSR. The future force will comprise 19 destroyers and frigates. It was a matter of great regret that the Government had to make a range of cuts in the SDSR, but that was a result of the general economic climate and, specifically, of the defence black hole that we inherited.

[LowObservable]

NaB - The NAO report is full of references to the operating cost of F-35B. I'm also guessing that the SDSR reviewers were aware of the ructions in Washington over the B, which culminated in the current "probation" phase - and just because the aircraft is STOVLing under test at Pax doesn't mean that the issues which drove that have gone away.

B is at best going to be expensive to operate. There are also numerous fixes in the work to solve technological issues that can be worked around in flight test (such as clutch heating in up-and-away) but are not acceptable operationally. The probation period is to show that those fixes work without adding more cost (that is, mostly in terms of durability and maintenance) or degrading bring-back through added weight or reduced lift.

And how much is it all worth? The Marines are talking about "11 extra carriers" but the fact is that the LHA/LHD can carry six jets (with no EW, AEW or tanker support) before they start pushing helicopters over the side.

[Not_a_boffin]

Mate, I think you should be pointing those comments at ME or Glojo, not me. I've already had to write RVL one more time than I wanted to this year.......

[Modern Elmo]

And how much is it all worth?

Not much. Let's give peace a chance. Downsize the war machine!:=

The Marines are talking about "11 extra carriers" but the fact is that the LHA/LHD can carry six jets (with no EW, AEW or tanker support) before they start pushing helicopters over the side.

I think they get that number eleven by adding up the ten existing Wasp and Tarawa class amphibious assault ships plus the upcoming USS America, the first of the LHA(R) class 45,00 ton amphibious assault ships with no well deck.

It's similar to the "through deck cruiser" euphemism. Don't call it an aircraft carrier, geddit?

http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/uss-america-lha6_2.jpg

I don't think the older amphibs could accomodate F-35's or V-22's very well, so I'm dubious about there being eleven VSTOL F-35-capable USN ships in the near future. The Tarawa class is also supposed to be retired before long.

STOVL F-35's are primarily for the America class. That's what I suspect the plan is, anyway. The decks of the America class ships are supposed to be able to cope with the hot exhaust of F-35's and V-22's, the elevators are bigger, the hangar deck is taller, and so on.

As far as aircraft head count, it sez here:

The LHA(R) will be U.S. Navy's newest multifunctional and most versatile, amphibious assault ship and has been specifically optimized for aircraft, particulalry the MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and the new J-35B VTOL Strike fighter. The America class will provide increased aviation capability, vehicle lift, cargo magazine capacity, better survivability, increased habitability standards and greater service life margins. As such the design includes enlarged hangar facilities to house more aircraft below decks and to more fully service them. There is no well deck, so no amphibious assault by sea is supported directly from the LHA(R) class.

The air assault role is optimized for larger air assault from much further out, allowing troops to arrive on scene more quickly and the LHA(R) to be better protected from its station further out to sea. In the air assault role, a typical load out for the LHA(R), USS America would be:

10 - F-35B JSF Strike Fighters
12 - MV-22 Osprey VTOL Tilt-Rotor Assault Aircraft
08 - AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters
04 - CH-53E Super Stallion Assault Helicopters
04 - MH-60S Seahawk SAR Helicopters

The America has also been designed specifically to serve in a Sea Control, aircraft carrier mode. In this role she would carry the following aircraft loadout:

22 - F-35B JSF Strike Fighters
06 - MH-60R Seahawk ASW Helicopters

...

WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - America Class Page (http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/america.htm)

Those numbers sound somewhat optimistic, do they not?

And notice, no ski jump.

[GreenKnight121]

Lets see... "11 decks".

8 Wasp-class LHDs*, all in commission.

1 Tarawa-class LHA** in commission.

I only count 9 right now, but in the future we will see:

at least 2 LHA(R) (one of which will replace the last Tarawa-class LHA in 2012), which brings us to 10... but more are planned, "up to 12" (to replace the LHDs as well).


I still don't see 11... and I expect that we will see 9-10 as the real sustained force.

However, 2 of those will be capable of that "22 F-35B" air-wing, and the Wasp-class LHDs are better suited for F-35B ops than the lone remaining Tarawa-class LHA.




* well, 7 to the original design with boilers and the 8th to a modified design using GTs instead.

** Of the 5 built, 1 was sunk as a target in 2006, 1 was sold for scrap in 2009, and 2 are decommissioned (1 in 2009 and designated for "other use" and the other in March 2011 and "in reserve").

[GreenKnight121]

QE can be converted for catapult & trap - it's just that doing it right now is not possible because the detailed design work required to accommodate the systems has not yet been done. Any further delay in the programme for QE will add serious cost, given that large heavily outfitted chunks of the ship are all over the country at the minute, with armies of workers swarming over them.

Like the 2-year delay on QE that was announced last October in the SDSR?

Apparently, the £950 million is for BOTH carriers to be fitted with catapults and arresting gear...

http://www.publications.p...-0002.htm#11071817000001 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110718/debtext/110718-0002.htm#11071817000001)
18 July 2011 : Column 656

Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Secretary of State confirm the exact details of the announcement he made in his statement when he said, “I can therefore now give the go-ahead for the procurement of” a list of things, including “the cat and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers”. Does that mean that both carriers will receive cat and traps?


Dr Fox: That is our plan, and I have agreed to my officials now getting involved in contract negotiations. They were not previously able to do so because we were not guaranteed that we would have the budget. When we make decisions of this nature we must ensure that we have the wherewithal to pay for them. Otherwise, as I have said, they are simply a wish list.

[glojo]

Good morning Green Knight,
This issue has been discussed on a different thread.

Lord West of Spithead (retired First Sea Lord) sought clarification of the statement made by Dr Laim Fox, namely the clear implication that BOTH carriers were to be modified.

All I can say in the defence of Liam Fox is that there will be two catapults which allows the plural wording for cats and clearly there will be more than one arrester wire which also allows the use of the plural, BUT the wording to me is quite clear!

TWO CARRIERS

Sadly that is NOT the case and when asked to clarify this situation here is the exact reply:


Lord Astor of Hever (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/?m=100026) (Conservative)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very complicated issue which will take a lot of study. I am very happy to organise further briefings for noble Lords if they would like on any particular issue, be it on the reserves or basing or anything else. I am grateful that the noble Lord supports the increase in spending, albeit of 1 per cent, which will enable us to do quite a lot. I can confirm that the cats and traps will be for one carrier-at the moment, we do not know which one it is. Whether to equip the other carrier with them will be a decision for the 2015 SDSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDSR).


Lord Astor is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence and this is the transcript (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-07-18a.1117.3) of the discussion regarding Dr Lam Fox's notification.

[Modern Elmo]

Navy Experts Encouraged by Early F-35 JBD Test Results
Posted by Amy Butler at 7/19/2011 10:16 AM CDT

U.S. Navy officials are so far encouraged by the results of a week of testing the F-35C with jet-blast deflectors (JBD) designed for use on aircraft carriers.

Navy Experts Encouraged by Early F-35 JBD Test Results (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab803f095-eace-4f3c-9d5f-eb1315f97361&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

...

At issue for the testing series is assessing how the single-engine F-35C affects JBD design currently deployed on carriers in the fleet. Though JBDs appear to simply be panels of metal and concrete, they actually contain a series of veins throughout their design that allow sea water to circulate to cool the structures. This is needed to conduct quick launches without overheating the deck or exposing other aircraft to excessive heat. JBDs are also needed on the carrier deck to divert hot exhaust as an aircraft launches from other aircraft lined up to takeoff seconds later. The outcome of these tests will provide input on whether changes to the cooling vein pattern need to be made to the existing JBD designs. ...


I expect that part of of the USS America's aviation deck will be water cooled in a similar manner, so as to cope with V-22 and STOVL F-35 hot exhaust. The USS America will probably also have tilt-up blast deflectors like the one in the photo at the link posted above.

Or maybe GreenLantern can correct me here.

[GreenKnight121]

glojo... there does seem to be two levels of statements going on... the "official" line that (as per the statement from Lord Astor) "the cats and traps will be for one carrier"... and the "behind-the-scenes" line shown by Fox that efforts are on-going to find a way to buy and fit catapults and arresting gear in the second ship as soon as the money can be found.

Minister 'misspoke over fast-jet pledge for new carriers' - Scotsman.com News (http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Minister-39misspoke-over-fastjet-pledge.6804289.jp)

Note the last part of the article, though...

However, Labour MPs, who have been pushing for both carriers to be brought into service to allow for continuous carrier capability in the Royal Navy, as well as boosting jobs on the Clyde and at Rosyth, claimed last night that they had received private assurances from Dr Fox outside the chamber following the statement.

Mr Davidson said that he had taken the Defence Secretary at his word in the Commons and that Dr Fox would need to clarify his statements to MPs if a mistake had been made.

He said: "As far as I can see this is excellent news for the navy and the shipbuilding industry.

"It would have been absurd to build two carriers and then leave one of them unable to launch or land fast jets.

"The government are to be congratulated for recognising the error in their previous position and for being willing to change their mind."


So, Fox is saying more than once that "the plan" IS for both to get catapults & arresting gear, but the MOD says "not right now".

On another forum it was suggested that the bottom line is they do want both to get cats/traps but they only have funding secured for the one so can't announce it (hence the 'that is the plan' and 'private assurance' statements)... perhaps the second set will only be purchased in time for QE's first refit.

This fits in with the "Whether to equip the other carrier with them will be a decision for the 2015 SDSR." line as well.


We will have to see which side wins out.

[GreenKnight121]

I expect that part of of the USS America's aviation deck will be water cooled in a similar manner, so as to cope with V-22 and STOVL F-35 hot exhaust. The USS America will probably also have tilt-up blast deflectors like the one in the photo at the link posted above.

I haven't read anything about installing JBDs on the LHA(R) class... as per the illo you posted earlier, the plan is for rolling take-offs using nearly the whole length of the flight deck, thus there would be no aircraft spotted behind the departing F-35B, thus no need to deflect the exhaust away from it.

The other purpose of the JBD is for protecting the flight deck from heating during pre-launch run-up... but as the F-35B's hot exhaust is directed aft, not partially downward (as with the F-4 Phantom), this is also not needed.


As for landing, the primary problem with the hot exhaust and the deck was with true vertical landings. The USMC has continued the RVL* research & development the RN started, not only to increase bring-back weight but to also reduce deck heating by eliminating the "one area gets sustained hot exhaust" associated with true vertical landings.

Therefore, there would be less need for any special cooled deck sections... improved heat/blast resistant deck coatings will likely be sufficient.


*rolling vertical landing

[Widger]

Gound runs are usually the biggest problem. Whilst they can mitigate the moving aspects of the aircraft operation, how will they mitigate the chained down high powered ground run?

When the GR7A was introduced into UK service, the Invincible class had to have all the deckheads on 2 deck stripped out and extra fire/soundproofing put in along with stronger lashing points. The deck still got warped and the noise underneath a run was quite intolerable!

[Willard Whyte]

Maybe Mr Ward will flog us a few sheets of this stuff?

Starlite, the nuclear blast-defying plastic that could change the world - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5158972/Starlite-the-nuclear-blast-defying-plastic-that-could-change-the-world.html)

[LowObservable]

"The USMC has continued the RVL* research & development the RN started, not only to increase bring-back weight but to also reduce deck heating by eliminating the "one area gets sustained hot exhaust" associated with true vertical landings."

Mr Boffin to the thread, please

[Modern Elmo]

I haven't read anything about installing JBDs on the LHA(R) class... as per the illo you posted earlier, the plan is for rolling take-offs using nearly the whole length of the flight deck, thus there would be no aircraft spotted behind the departing F-35B, thus no need to deflect the exhaust away from it.

They are going to back the airplanes up all the way to the stern to start the takeoff roll? Maybe, OK ... Stern of the aircraft at ship's stern, exhaust nozzle horizontal... No need for jet blast deflectors.

Also wonder if afterburner will be needed for heavy gross weight takeoffs?

I'm thinking that a hold back/wheel chocking mechanism may be be needed to hold an F-35 as its engine spools up and the aviator ticks off some checklist items, even if blast deflectors aren't used.

Question for knowledgable Harrier person: what is the standard procedure for a ski jump takeoff? Set jet exhaust horizontal, and mash down on the rudder pedals/brakes as the engine spins up to X percent of nominal full throttle? Do the brakes hold to 100 percent standard power?

Another also: Heating the deck too hot is probably more of an issue for V-22 than for F-35. V-22 cannot rotate propulsion pods to horizontal if wheels are extended. But please, I'm sure the Navy has thought of this, so no need to worry that the deck's going to melt.

[GreenKnight121]

Modern Elmo... at least a year ago, there was a discussion on the MV-22's exhaust... the heating only became a problem when its engines were run at idle for more than 20 minutes or so in the same spot, or at full power for over 5 minutes in the same spot.

Initially, time restrictions for "same-spot running" were put in place, and portable "hot pads" used to protect the deck, but a permanent solution was soon developed.

The majority of the "fix" was to simply not run them for so long at the same angle (it was determined that adjusting the nacelles' angle a few degrees every few minutes greatly reduced the heating effect), and the rest was a new heat-resistant deck coating!

The MV-22 has been operationally deploying shipboard for at least a year now, with no noteworthy deck-heating issues.



Widger... "chained-down hull-power runs" on an F-35B will be conducted the same way they are for all other jet-powered aircraft on normal carriers... with the tail at (or just over) the deck-edge, pointing outboard!

The nozzle will only be directed down during these runs to verify correct functioning of the actuators, there will be no need to run them for any significant length of time while pointing down. This should be relatively simple to do with the tail extending past the flight deck... thus no worries about high-output exhaust blasting the deck coating or splashing out to injure nearby crewmen.

No worries about heat from the lift-fan... it blows unheated air!

[NoHoverstop]

Question for knowledgable Harrier person: what is the standard procedure for a ski jump takeoff? Set jet exhaust horizontal, and mash down on the rudder pedals/brakes as the engine spins up to X percent of nominal full throttle? Do the brakes hold to 100 percent standard power?

Until one of those turns up, you'll have to make do with answers from me. Your second question is easiest - no, they do not. Or rather, the brakes might but the but the tyre/deck interface will not. Only the main gear has brakes, so given the the nose-wheel and outriggers have about 1/2 the aircraft weight sitting on them and that even the heaviest ever Harrier II launch was at rather less weight than thrust x 2, there's just not enough deck friction available.

You might want a proper pilot for SOP, but in terms of throttle/brakes after all the tailplane trim, duct pressure and IGV checks (and lots of other checks too, probably including seeing if anyone is showing you a green flag) it will be held on brakes at an above-idle but still not very high RPM with nozzles aft, watch the bows for deck motion in the unshakeable belief that ship motion is in some way predictable and that trying to time it somehow gives better results on average than just not bothering, then at an opportune moment slam to whatever full throttle gives (no dainty setting, just slam by feel to the full-throttle stop) and release the brakes when the jet starts to move as the RPM is racing through high numbers (typically in my experience after dragging the main gear for about 5ft). It may be a turbo-fan engine but it still spools-up very quickly between the previously referred to above-idle RPM and max.

Hopefully if that's too far away from the truth a Harrier pilot will be along to correct it. I can't be expected to remember everything that happened on ship trials.

Many years ago before Sharkey got his hands on a SHAR it was felt that the SHAR might want a hold-back device. The pilot could then wait until the engine got to 100+% Nf, have a leisurely check of everything and then go when happy. So way back then "my" jet was given a little button on top of the nozzle lever for commanding hold-back release (it never to my knowledge got the rest of the kit though), which lives on to this day in a certain flight simulator if anyone ever finds themselves in that sim and wonders about it. I don't know when the decision was taken to not bother with it for SHAR. Maybe someone mentioned that it would cost money so it just got overtaken by events.

[SammySu]

That about sums it up, cant set more than about 60% without moving. Brakes will happily hold the main wheels in a fixed position but unfortunately the jet will then drag said wheels along the deck until you are off the end and airborne.
Which means beers for the maintainers who have to change your tyres, and beers for Wings who's not impressed with the 300 ft long double black stripe you've added to the deck markings.
I've watched the "trial". Mildly amusing. At least in a Harrier you can land again with shredded tyres without any tears.

[LowObservable]

Elmo - I don't think A/B is an option. (1) it could be problematical as the nozzle is adjusted to let the LP turbine drive the lift-fan, and the engine fan stream is diverted to the roll posts. (2) The main nozzle gets tilted slightly down during the deck run, to offset the lift-fan's nose-up pitching moment enough to keep weight on the nosewheel. A/B would therefore result in something like this:

http://abovethelaw.com/_old/Back%20to%20the%20Future%202%20DeLorean%20time%20machine.jpg

[Modern Elmo]

LO, I expect that that the STOVL F-35 will NOT use its lift fan or any vectored thrust for a ship's deck departure.

//////////////////////////////////////

More questions about Harrier I or Harrier II:

Typical mission gross weight for ski jump takeoff was about how much?

For takeoff, flaps would be set to how many degrees?

True airspeed just after departing the ramp and becoming airborne would be approximately what?

What was the o-fficial appelation for the ski jump or ramp?

[LowObservable]

ME - That's not what I have seen and researched.

Goes like this:

1 - STO starts with the core nozzle almost straight aft, with a little nose-down pitching moment to load the nosewheel and ensure effective steering.
2 - The pilot applies aft stick and the core nozzle and fan set the required nose-up pitch for liftoff. This can also be commanded by pushing a button on the stick, or done automatically after the pilot inputs a deck-roll distance.
3 - As soon as the weight is off the wheels the engine nozzles and aerodynamic surfaces combine to provide conventional handling responses.
4 - As the aircraft accelerates, the aerodynamic surfaces get more effective, the engine effectors become less active and the thrust points aft.

Once the jet is above stall speed, the pilot presses the conversion button. The reverse conversion takes about 10 seconds. The clutch re-engages to free the locks, which are pulled out, and the clutch backs away. The core nozzle rolls up and is locked in full-aft position, and when the lift fan has spun down the STOVL doors are closed.

[SammySu]

More questions about Harrier I or Harrier II:

Typical mission gross weight for ski jump takeoff was about how much?

About 30-32000lb ish

For takeoff, flaps would be set to how many degrees?

Flaps are at 25deg then schedule with nozzle rotation in STOL mode - if say 40noz used flaps move to 40ish degrees ,if max noz - 55noz is used (when lightweight) flaps will move all the way down to 62deg.

True airspeed just after departing the ramp and becoming airborne would be approximately what?

Say 85-95 kts, but its AOA that counts - should have been 12units.

What was the o-fficial appelation for the ski jump or ramp?

If you mean angle it was 12 degrees (started with lower angles when first introduced)

For each launch there would be a maximum and minimum launch distance- minimum is closest you could be to the ramp and still achieve safe launch speed on ramp exit, maximum is furthest away the jet could be and still safely hit the ramp profile without damaging itself. If very heavy there were times when min distance reqd exceeded maximum distance allowed - here you would have to defuel to reduce launch weight, or increase wind over the deck to reduce min distance required. At least this was always possible unlike on land, just burnt lots of ship fuel and made the old girl shake a bit..

Airspeed on ramp exit was of no real interest. You just needed to know max and min distances and nozzle rotate angle and tailplane trim. On ramp exit you captured the AOA and nozzled out towards the end of the ballistic phase as IAS built to sustain wingborne flight.
The ODM would calculate launch distances based on a Datum Launch Speed. Margins below datum were then used based on temperature and fit state. Counter-intuitively if very lightweight you werent allowed to go much below datum, whereas if you were heavy with jettisonable stores or the option of using water you could launch significantly below the datum as you had lots of ways of improving performance if you had a bad go.

It really was the gentlemans way to get airborne and was not a difficult technique - however when it went wrong it could go wrong very quickly.

[Modern Elmo]

Thank you, Sammy Su.

As to the official name of a though deck cruiser's ski jump, if the USN had one of those, NAVAIR would call it something inscrutable.

The basic purpose of the ramp, or rose by any other name-- is it to increase the aircraft's angle of attack? ... Rather similar functional effect to the old F-8 Crusader's Variable Incidence Wing. This was a high wing fighter with a jackscrew mechanism to pitch the wing's angle of incidence up from the fuselage during takeoff and landing.

Returning to the STOVL F-35, the rear exhaust nozzle probably stays horizontal during takeoff roll and rotation into flight.

Maybe the lift fan supplies just enough thrust at the appropriate angle as the aircraft departs the deck to pitch the aircraft up to a higher angle of attack, while the rear nozzle stays horizontal?

[SammySu]

No Elmo, the basic purpose of the ramp is to effectively increase the length of the ships deck by giving you some more runway in the sky. By throwing the aircraft into the air the ramp launch involves a ballistic phase where you are still too slow to fly, whilst following the ballistic trajectory and hopefully prior to hitting the sea you are utilising this extra time to allow the aircraft to accelerate to a forward speed where the wing is generating enough lift to then stay airborne.
In a Harrier II the ballistic phase was minimal unless very heavy, and the required speed for enough winglift was low thanks to it's efficiency. Airspeeds were lower than STOBAR aircraft like Mig29K as you were also able to provide a jet lift component to the equation but the principle of ramp providing a ballistic throw to allow the aircraft extra "deck"'to accelerate to flying speed is the same to all.

[Obi Wan Russell]

It is worth noting that Cmdr Taylor's original thesis which lead to the ski jump ramp was called 'The Runway In The Sky' because as Sammy has just said that is exactly what it does. The aircraft isn't actually 'flying' on it's wings until it reaches for example 130+ knots, but that would require a flight deck in excess of 1500 ft in length for some types. The ramp throws the aircraft into the air long before it is truly flying and buys it time to continue accelerating to full flying speed, due to the ballistic component. It also buys the pilot time in case of an emergency such as engine failure to decide to eject, many more vital seconds than if launched from a flat deck (either by cat shot or rolling free takeoff as on a rampless USN LHA/LHD). It is giving you an extra 500+ feet of 'virtual' runway made of air, for free. Not often you get a bargain like that!:ok:

[Modern Elmo]

"Ballistic phase" and "runway in the sky" -- I dunno about that. "Runway in the sky" sounds like public relations aimed at passengers.

A ballistic projectile is an object initially projected upward in a gravitational field which cannot develop enough lift to significantly depart from a parabolic trajectory. A Medieval catapult throws stones into a ballistic trajectory.

"Transiently developing insufficient lift" might be a more accurately describe a Harrier's state shortly after departing the ramp. All right, if you insist, we can could call that a "ballistic phase."

One's Harrier needs to take off with as much kinetic energy as possible. Climbing the ramp makes the airplane lose some kinetic energy, compared to a Harrier takeoff roll for a distance equal to same ski jump approach deck run plus ramp length lowered to horizontal.

A Medieval catapult throws stones into a ballistic trajectory by transferring kinetic energy to the stones. A ramp for Harrier takeoffs is not a catapult. The Harrier loses some k.e. as the Harrier climbs the ramp.

Pitching the aircraft up roughly ten degrees relative to any wind over deck also increases form drag and skin drag slightly. Also, the airplane's momentum increases weight on wheels and therefore rolling resistance during the climb up the ramp.

If the goal is only to have as much kinetic energy as possible just after weight is no longer on wheels, one is better off taking off from a horizontal deck with no ramp, assuming the deck is high enough above the sea to allow recovery from an almost stalled condition.

One might also say that the ski jump or ramp trades kinetic energy for potential energy. However, I don't see the point in merely trading p.e. for k.e during Harrier takeoff, if no other benefit is achieved. Following this logic, an improved Invincible class should have had the entire aviation deck raised to the height of the top of the ramp, so as to gain potential energy without sacrificing kinetic energy for a Harrier's ballistic leap onto that runway in the sky.

As far as being higher above the water giving one more time to eject, I'm not sure that that there'd be significant difference in time until water impact, if one has traded (ramp length)*sin( 10 deg) of p.e. for (ramp length )*(cos 10 deg) of k.e., assuming the aircraft is developing some lift in both cases.

Remember, a stalled aircraft does not actually drop like a stone.

Sorry, but I think the ramp helps by pitching up the Harrier's wing to a higher angle of attack and therefore a bigger lift coefficient; a higher aoa than the airplane could achieve without the ramp during takeoff rotation. This rotation to higher aoa compensates for the shorter deck roll allowed by an Invincible-class, even though the ramp takeoff trades away some kinetic energy.

//////////////////

The aircraft isn't actually 'flying' on it's wings until it reaches for example 130+ knots, but that would require a flight deck in excess of 1500 ft in length for some types.

What types are those?

How do AV-8B's operate off 844 foot long WASP-class ships? My supposition is that AV-8B's depart the deck with their wings at a lower angle of attack and therefore with a smaller lift coefficient just after departing the ramp, compared to the aoa of a Harrier II taking off from an Invincible-class. However, the AV-8B is compensated by departing a Wasp's deck after a longer roll and therefore with more kinetic energy for that "ballistic phase" and "runway in the sky."

The ski jump cleverly and smartly compensates for a shorter deck roll.

[Just This Once...]

Elmo:
Sorry, but I think the ramp helps by pitching up the Harrier's wing to a higher angle of attack and therefore a bigger lift coefficient; a higher aoa than the airplane could achieve without the ramp during takeoff rotation.

It kinda looks like you are arguing against a bunch of Harrier dudes who rarely take their eye off the alpha indication in the HUD during a ski-jump assisted departure...

[Modern Elmo]

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aero/images/7.gif

Source: aerodynamic lift (http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aero/lift.htm)

I was long-winded last night. Too wordy.

Check this graph. Notice that CsubL is at or near its maximum at alpha = 10 degrees. The three different curves are for different aspect ratios.

Harrier ramps are inclined at a ten degree angle, I think. And the Admiral Kuznetsov had a twelve degree ramp(?). The idea is to rotate the wing to its maximum CsubL.

....

I believe that there's a movie from the early 1950's titled Highway in the Sky, starring John Wayne as an heroic DC-3 pilot.

[NoHoverstop]

Harrier ramps are inclined at a ten degree angle, I think

HMS Invincible had a 7° ramp to begin with but this was later increased to 12°, which is the same for Hermes, Illustrious and Ark Royal.

Whether you like it or not, the ski-jump principle is basically about partially-ballistic trajectories giving "runway in the sky" to use to accelerate to a speeds where >+1g Nz is available. Your basic sums are wrong, as the ramps are curved in profile rather than straight as suggested by your simple trigonometry. I've walked up more than one, but find some pictures on the internet if you want evidence. Some KE is traded off on the way up the ramp, but nowhere near as much as you think bearing in mind the ramp length and *exit* angle (entry angle is zero). You are correct that rolling resistance increases on the ramp, but that is trivial and I can't remember it ever being accounted for in any performance calculations I've seen. What matters far more is the upward component of velocity at ramp exit. As an additional benefit, this also means that even if the engine misbehaved when leaving the ramp, the aircraft would have signficantly more time in the air than the equivalent situation with a flat-deck launch. Significant in terms of time for stores-jettison, engine limiter-tripping and/or ejection anyway)

You should probably have a look at how flightpath angle, pitch angle and angle of attack are related, as you seem to be confused about that too. Ever wondered why Harriers on the ground have a marked nose-up attitude (assuming the nose-gear oleo is correctly pressurised, which in many static museum examples is not the case)?

What types are those?

1st generation Harrier (i.e. not Harrier II) variants are not as generously endowed in the wing department as the Harrier II family. I have only ever seen a handful of Harrier flat-deck STOs and they were at lightish weight, so the angled deck of PA Charles de Gaulle sufficed for length. Loaded up with external stores, I can easily envisage 130kts being required and in that case CdG's angled deck wouldn't have been long enough, even with its 4m extension (sorry mes amis, couldn't resist!).

[Modern Elmo]

OK, I'm not that good at old movies. The John Wayne film is *Island in the Sky.* *No Island in the Sky* stars Jimmy Stewart. The Labrador overlap in these movies got me confused.


Island in the Sky (1953)

With John Wayne, Lloyd Nolan, Walter Abel, James Arness. A transport plane crash-lands in the frozen wastes of Labrador, and the plane's pilot, Dooley, must …


No Highway in the Sky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Highway in the Sky

...
Distributed by 20th Century Fox
Release date(s) 28 June 1951
September 21, 1951

Country UK
Language English

No Highway in the Sky is a 1951 British disaster film (aka: No Highway) directed by Henry Koster and starring James Stewart and Marlene Dietrich. ...

The film follows Theodore Honey (James Stewart), a highly eccentric "boffin" with the Royal Aircraft Establishment. A widower with a precocious young daughter, Elspeth (Janette Scott), Honey is sent from Farnborough to investigate the crash of a "Reindeer" airliner in Labrador, which he theorizes occurred because of a structural failure in the tail caused by sudden metal fatigue. ...

[glojo]

Here is the latest gossip (http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/clevewyn/Vid/?action=view&current=QE.mp4).

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Progress is been made with construction - the first(?) super block has been safely transported (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/cv-class-news/huge_section_of_hms_.htm) to Rosyth.

This 8,000-tonne segment – Lower Block 03 to give it its official title – of the ship was towed 600 miles around the Scottish coast from one great artery, the Clyde, to another, the Forth, during a five-day operation. It safely arrived early on Saturday evening.

It took shipwrights at BAE Systems’ Govan yard two years to complete the section, which is more than 20 metres (65ft) high, 60 metres (196ft) long and 40 metres (131ft) wide. In addition to machinery spaces, it contains cabins for more than 150 members of the ship’s company and part of the vast hangar.

Lower Block 03 is the latest section of the 65,000-tonne warship to be built in six shipyards around the UK and transported to the Forth.

One of the largest cranes in the UK – its span is 120m (393ft) and it’s 68m (223ft) to the underside of the main beam – Goliath has been assembled in Rosyth to move sections of Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales weighing up to 1,000 tonnes each. It’s due to be ready to start work next month.

And here is another one (http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/951), built on the Tyne.

YOU wait three years for Britain’s next generation aircraft carrier to take shape and then two massive sections are finished in a week…

Just days after the largest segment yet of HMS Queen Elizabeth was towed up the Forth, another huge section of the ship has been unveiled down the East Coast on Tyneside.

The carrier’s hangar was turned into a function room for an official reception to celebrate the completion of Centre Block 03, a 3,000-tonne piece of the carrier which comprises some of its flight deck and cavernous hangar among other compartments.

The 63-metre-long (206ft) block stands six metres (20ft) tall and is 40 metres (131ft) wide. It’s taken 18 months and half a million man hours to complete – and was finished five weeks ahead of schedule by shipwrights at A&P in Hebburn, the last yard on the Tyne building warships.

A&P won a £55m order to build segments of Queen Elizabeth and her sister Prince of Wales – it’s one of six yards involved in the mammoth shipbuilding programme.

Meanwhile: Ministers reconsider mothballing carrier (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/ministers_reconsider_mothballing_carrier_1_2987052)

:hmm:

[LowObservable]

In other news:

Navy Official Questions Need For JSF Variants | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/08/25/01.xml&headline=Navy%20Official%20Questions%20Need%20For%20JSF%20Va riants)

The problem is that the three US customers have different views of the JSF.

For the Marines, it is existential: they desperately do not want to rely on carrier support, and their current doctrine calls for their amphibious fleet to be autonomous and self-supporting. They are also very powerful politically.

Of all the US services, the Navy gains least from JSF. They have a pretty capable aircraft in production, with some development potential.

The USAF wants the F-35, but has so many on the books that it could afford to trim back if it had to and buy a few F-15s and F-16s.

The run-up to the Defense Acquisition Board review will be interesting.

[LowObservable]

WEBF - Re that carrier story, the same reporter comes up with some interesting items...

MoD urged to buy cheaper Navy jets - East Hampshire - The News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/mod_urged_to_buy_cheaper_navy_jets_1_2923801#.TjmEdKE4ogc.ho tmail)

[Capt P U G Wash]

And that is the problem when one Service becomes blinded by the desire to own a Carrier at any cost. This is not just MoD officials; there are many RN retirees who are pushing this mantra (Sharkey for one). The (Portsmouth) News always seems to have an RN slant on any story and the local MP won’t be far behind.

There are two very important issues at stake here rather than just having a stealthy day one entry aircraft (although any change of heart in the US will obviously impact on all other customers):

If we didn’t buy it, three things would happen as a consequence:


The UK work share would be under huge threat and the revenue that is currently being banked by HMT could be lost – there are many 10s of Billions at stake here in inward UK investment.



We will be consigned to the second division if all other customers purchase. We will break away with our new French chums and sit firmly nt eh 4th Generation 2nd Division.



You can kiss buy to any pretence of the “Special relationship”.

Now, the RN retirees who are pushing the Super Hornet have a number of reasons why they do so. One valid, one very nefarious:



The valid reason is the real problem of a lack of airborne refuelling capability – you might be able to take risk with STOVL but conventional aircraft need the option. A F35 tanker looks prohibitive and a mini fleet of Hornet tankers will be a disproportionate, additional cost.



The dodgy one is that they believe that they can revitalise their claim to own the capability through their attempts at a large US exchange programme for their FAA aircrew over the coming years (although this has come under scrutiny now).

We must all remember, much as it pains the RN to admit, that these aircraft will be owned and run by the RAF not the RN who will, of course, be part of the team that operate them. The calculation on FE@R and other knock on impacts to ISTAR programmes would have been made on the basis of what the JSF offered as a capbility; remove it and you have to completely revamp the programme - any assumed savings will disappear very quickly.

I urge anyone to think this through, the consequences are far worse than just some tactical disadvantage or cost cutting for the MoD budget – it will completely affect our strategic relationships and our tax receipts.

Now that will make the politicians sit up!

[Tallsar]

Well said Captain! A good input. Affordability is still a worrysome issue though.. Whatever is being said by Lockheed, the cost still seems likely to overshoot again. We do need to be able to afford a least one Carrier's worth at the outset.. and the signs are not encouraging.

[FB11]

Capt P U G Wash,

Interesting slant on the US non-reciprocal exchanges that might suggest the Navy is hiding pilots in the FA-18 system so that might take on CV jet flying from aircraft carriers.

The reality is much more simple as disappointing as this is to the conspiracy theorists. The demise of Harrier means that RN pilots have no alternative aircraft to maintain and develop it's pilots over the next 10 years.

The RAF, when asked for fast jet slots to allow for this 'joint' force to be ready when the time came said 'no'. The RN, faced with no other option, brokers a deal with the USN (after all, navies deal with navies) and do note that this was before the variant change decision in October last year.

The cost to UK taxpayers for 3.5 years flying a very capable jet (banking upwards of 1000 hours and 300 traps in a Super Hornet) is less than the full flying hour cost of 25 Typhoon flying hours. I would call that a good deal.

Now that we are in the CV camp, it is a free and happy position for the UK that some of the pilots will be well placed to test, evaluate and operate the F-35C Carrier Variant compared to those who come from the 'multi-role' world flying 8-12 land based hours per month.

So nothing more sinister than no fast jet seats in the UK for RN pilots to fly so they went to their much bigger friend in the US and smaller friend in France who have stepped up to the plate. By doing so they have helped the RN (and the UK) to be more likely to deliver a 5th gen capability in the challenging and demanding maritime environment.

This is also why the RAF tried to progress a French Navy Rafael exchange which didn't get past first base when I had visibility of it. Articles in JDW by air ranking officers would have probably put paid to any agreed slot anyway.

More dangerous to the UK is those who think that it would be clever to push the F-35A at every opportunity as an alternative; much more likely to be a re-run of the late 60's when both the RAF and the RN lost out because of inter-service childishness.

DPOC is dead so the original reason for pushing F-35B as a non-competitor to it is no longer an issue.

We're therefore not buying F-35C because the UK needs a 5th gen capability in isolation. We're buying a replacement aircraft for FA2 and GR9 that can fly from an aircraft carrier and has 5th gen characteristics. Maybe if we could all agree that one needs the other the better else we all lose.

We have an agreed policy out of SDSR that gives the UK a fantastic aircraft and a capability from the joint QE platforms that will give us a flexible response for 50 years.

The special relationship would not be in jeopardy if future F-35 decisions that had an impact on a UK buy were because of the US financial climate.

And as for us playing second fiddle to all the other nations who remain in the programme - if the unit price cost goes up so far that the US starts to drop out, how many of the minor nations will still be in at the end?

Maybe a pragmatic UK would again be prepared for viable alternatives that keeps current policy on track without us losing the lot because we try and peddle a first day of the war mantra that we haven't achieved for the last 50 years.

[Not_a_boffin]

"Of all the US services, the Navy gains least from JSF. They have a pretty capable aircraft in production, with some development potential."

Errrr, no, sorry LO. The SuperBug is a good aircraft, but it's barely 4th Gen and it certainly won't do day one ops against any credible IADS with double-digit pucker-factor and any sort of credible air force.

The Navy is still paying the price for A12. Compared to the CVW of twenty years ago, the capability is relatively degraded - A6E plus F14B/D, plus KA6D & EA6B trumps any number of Bug variants today, in all but one (very important) respect - cost of ownership. In essence the USN has taken a substantial capability hit because the A12 programme failed and the only reason they are still in the game is that they've managed to get a capable aircraft ("stopgap" does the Superbug a disservice) on the back of O&M savings.

They can't afford to do that again.

[Capt P U G Wash]

FB, I must answer your allegation of RAF reluctance to offer FAA pilots cockpits. Whilst the demise of the Harrier clearly cost the RN the vast majority of her fixed wing slots, the RAF lost far more cockpits. Did you really expect the RAF to take an even bigger hit?

In fixed wing squadron terms, the RN have lost one in the last three years, the RAF have lost eight and gained one. Reductions in fast jet fleets have cost the RAF well over 100 cockpits, when the RN lost about 20. The question that should have been asked at this stage was could Defence afford to keep a disproportionate amount of RN aircrew who rarely compete above OF5. If the RN had a ship’s Captain (and even a 1SL) who was a fixed wing aviator (like the USN) then we could have a different conversation. But your address may indicate that you know more than most on the exchamge agenda.

Also, your sums are flawed: there would be no additional Typhoon flying generated (an RN pilot would merely have supplanted an RAF one), so any one-way exchanges in the US are costing Defence additional money - nice try though!

As for the need to keep current FAA pilots in the cockpit, just how many of the current crop do you think will see a JSF slot? The vast majority of our future JSF pilots have only just got their GCSE results – A*s of course! There is no need to keep a bunch of thirty something’s in the cockpit if there is nowhere for them to go later.

You don’t hear the RAF talking about F35A and no Carriers, but if some continue to peddle the Super Hornet agenda you will….

[alfred_the_great]

And how many of the Kipper fleet currently dispersed around the world will see the back of whatever MPA we choose to buy in 5/10/15+ years time? Either there is an argument to be made that continuing seedcorn activity is good, regardless of the fact that some, or nearly all, the specific individuals involved won't be used "in role" or that we intend to regenerate specific skills from an ab initio position. The risk taken on several options was mitigated, in part, by a seedcorn activity offered by other nation's armed forces.

Oh, btw there used to be a way a zoomie could become a 2*, without ever going near sea command, but then FOMA/AOC 3 Gp suddenly became "reorganised" and disappeared......

edit - and you know why aviators are Capt of ship's in the USN, and their cultural issues were not replicated in the RN. There have been plenty of rotary pilots and observers who've made 2/3*.

[lj101]

There is no need to keep a bunch of thirty something’s in the cockpit if there is nowhere for them to go later.

P U G

The RN are sending their youngsters too.... and good for them.

[ORAC]

They can't afford to do that again.

Under Secretary of the Navy Robert Work’s July Tac Air Memo (http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-of-the-navy-robert-works-july-tac-air-memo/)

[Foghorn Leghorn]

How many times, F-35C and F-35A will not get axed. F-35B is looking dodgy though.

[Not_a_boffin]

Note the explicit reference to it being a numbers trade-off rather than a cancellation exercise (although B2 & F22 unit prices show what happens when you trim numbers too far).

My point was that cancellation of F35C would actually hurt the USN more than most. No "new" aircraft entering service for twenty-odd years is a recipe for extinction, even in an age where the frame "performance" capability growth rate of both threat and own forces has lessened when compared to the 60s to 90s.

[glad rag]

That's a bit of a memo, just how are they going to define the performance differential of the magical "stealf" [sub-para (a) of analysis requirements] for starters when one is neither operational/ has been exposed to the operational environment??:}

[FB11]

Capt P U G Wash

Thank you for answering my non-allegation. It was a statement of fact. Question asked and the answer was no (but we are now all the more wise for the heart aching demise of the RN and RAF fast jet fleet cockpit seats.)

Defence withdrew Harrier from service and committed the RN and RAF to flying F-35B and then the F-35C to flying in a joint force. It didn't suggest that the RN walk away from flying until the young officers fresh from their GCSE results walked into flying training to become the first operational JCA pilots on the lowest rung.

Defence has a requirement to keep the correct minimum sustainable numbers of RN pilots in cockpits when they removed the only UK based jet they flew.

Unless you are suggesting that the RAF would populate the CO, XO, 2xFC, QWI, QFI and the RN would have a handful of JOs that might make Flight Commander status by 2030? Not very joint.

And the first 2 aircrew for the F-35 Test and Evaluation Squadron start next year with a steady requirement increasing until the operational squadron is formed. The more senior aircrew the RN has going through the US system will (happily for the UK) be in a much better place to get the best from UK OT&E of F-35C than, for example, a pilot flying a land based jet with half the number of flying hours in the same period and no embarked experience. Working alongside other RAF pilots who have completed exchanges on unique aircraft, we might just do a half decent operational test.

Nothing contentious in that, just a statement of fact.

As lj101 correctly identifies, the RN is sending ab-initio pilots (not quite fresh fresh from their GCSE results but not far) to become the QWIs and flight commanders of the 2020's and the commanding officers of the late 2020's. They are sending more experienced aircrew from first tourists through to aircrew who are therefore able to compete for posts at SO3 through to SO1 from now onwards. As you'd expect from a joint force.

As for RN fast jet pilots not competing above OF5? As though, if that were the case, it were somehow a 'waste' of a slot? The RAF fixation for the fast jet pilot being at the top of the organisation must be mildly amusing for the C-130 pilot Chief of the USAF. And I assume that if the 'vast majority of JCA pilots' have got A* in their GCSE, the A400M; CH-47; C-17 pilots etc are scraping through with a handful of B and C grades?

It's like reading a letter from Torpy.

Also, your sums are flawed: there would be no additional Typhoon flying generated (an RN pilot would merely have supplanted an RAF one), so any one-way exchanges in the US are costing Defence additional money - nice try though!
I don't understand your point. I know there would be no extra Typhoon flying generated; the Typhoon can't generate enough flying hours anyway - it's a blessing in disguise that UK pilots (think about that one for a minute) can get up to a 1000 hours of true multi-role in the same time a Typhoon pilot struggles to get 500 at best. All for the cost of 25 hours of Typhoon flying.

The brokers of that deal should get their 25 quid Herbett Lott award from HMT.

You don’t hear the RAF talking about F35A and no Carriers

Yes, you do.

but if some continue to peddle the Super Hornet agenda you will….

And we'll all be screwed if it happens.

Retired and passionate lobbyists versus serving senior ranked officers lobbying against endorsed policy.

There is a difference and the politicians know it.

But....yeahhhhh! Let's cut our nose off to spite our face and we'll face another generational equivalent of flying Jaguars, F3s and GR1s while everyone else flies F-15s, F-16s and F-18s.

[LowObservable]

NaB - Despite the Super Bug's limitations, it's still more modern than anything that the USAF has, except for the F-22 - whose current grounding is only one of its problems. It's getting good at FAC-A, CAS, NTISR and all the weird things you use fighters for these days. And it has two engines...

The Ultra Bug proposals (which improve signatures, speed/agility and range) should defer the day when IADS does start to close major regions off to the F/A-18 and EA-18 combo.

It seems that battle lines have been drawn up, though, and that the Bug push is coming from certain UK CV advocates with an RN leaning. I suspect from the two Portsmouth stories that they hope that the lower acquisition and operating costs for the Bug will ease the way for the second carrier to be activated.

Foghorn - Not sure I agree. If the F-35B is cancelled - and I suspect that some people hope that it will fall on its ar*e of its own accord, obviating an all-out fight with the Corps - the C's flank is exposed to an F/A-18 + UCAV pitch. Risky, but not completely crazy - and you'll have Boeing, Raytheon, GE, their flock of Congresscritters and the CV Bug mafia pushing it.

I'm sensing an unusual degree of twitch from the advocates of the Lockheed DeathStar these days. The long delays to the Defense Acquisition Board review don't suggest that anyone's yet made a lead-pipe-cinch case for going damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with the program of record.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

LO, F-35A and C models will not be cancelled.

[LowObservable]

It won't shock me if they are not cancelled.

However, this is no time to be talking in terms of absolute certainty about any aspect of the JSF program.

[sisemen]

Carrier, schmarrier. It'll all be academic if this baby ever sees the light of day.

http://au.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f1001%5fALkaiWIAAKyETlne%2bwqH4HXO6d0&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1

http://au.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f1001%5fALkaiWIAAKyETlne%2bwqH4HXO6d0&pid=2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1

[cokecan]

i imagine that now Cameron has had a successful expedition the likelyhood is that both carriers will enter and remain in service, and that QE2 will get her cats...

much as i'm sceptical about JSF (though i'd love it to work it as advertised), and SH looks like an obvious alternative that would allow both QE's to sail the waves with biiiig airgroups as soon as they get into service, the problem seems to be the longevity of the programme - could SH/UH plausably remain in service till 2060?

would having a pair of QE's with 40 SH's apiece be 'better' than having QE's that we'd be lucky to get 20 F-35C's on?

[Not_a_boffin]

LO

I agree - it is more modern than anything the USAF has, except F22 and B2, but that doesn't make it the right course to take. Half the reason F35 is in such difficulties (and Tiffie for that matter) is that unless you exercise the design and build element of complex weapon system production, you'll lose it - and it costs the devil to get it back.

If Mr Putin wasn't sitting on an energy monopoly, MAK50 would never have happened at all, and it took long enough. Applies across the board - ships, aircraft.....new tanks are going to be really amusing.

F35 is the classic example of, the lowest cost option ain't necessarily the most cost-effective.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

now Cameron has had a successful expedition the likelyhood is that both carriers will enter and remain in service


Eh? HM Forces contributed successfully to Libya with no carrier available = carriers not as vital as everyone says (in a politician's eyes, at least!).

[Capt P U G Wash]

FB, you are clearly well informed on the issues.
You use the word Joint many times in your piece – from your unique vantage point in Washington: how many F18 slots are being sourced for the RN and how many of these essential training opportunities will also be made available to RAF pilots who will also need to obtain the same skill sets as the FAA?

[ORAC]

F35 is the classic example of, the lowest cost option ain't necessarily the most cost-effective. And the F-22 is the classic example of the fact that quantity has a quality all of it's own.....

[Thelma Viaduct]

Could you have a force mix of say 100/40 - F18/F35 ?

This would enable a potent combat force of F18s by 2020 and allow the run in of F35 as it trickles in to service.

Benefits: Earlier capability, allows run up to F35 ops, less expensive, is stealth really necessary beyond the opening days of a campaign?, preserves 'golden bullet' a/c, enables a/c redundancy, force flexibility (why take a ship load of F35s to an area when F18 is more than capable), maintenance, combat proven F18,

Negatives: Logistics, Engineering,.....

[ORAC]

I think that's the point of the memo - not cancellation, but a drastically reduced F-35 buy.

For over the last 20 years it's been mooted that what the DoD needs is small scale R&D programmes leading to a couple of Sqns of next generation aircraft. No great engineering costs for entry to service and logistics, just to retain the engineering skills and infrastructure to ramp up if needed.

In the F-22 the USAF reached that point. In the F-35 maybe the USN and USMC are as well...

[orca]

It would be a little rich of the RAF to blub about access to the non-reciprocal exchanges.

Initially the idea of using USN/USMC cockpits to populate the RN cadre of FCBA/JCA came about as 20(R) could only provide a maximum IPS of 4 compared to a requirement of 7.

The current requirement to populate sensible levels of the RN rank structure with fixed wing experience, produce a cross section of rank and experience for JCA and to participate in the test and evalution of F-35 leads to a very clear need to get pilots of varying career profiles into cockpits.

The RAF has made it very clear that it will not help. If you think that this is out of necessity then that is up to you. Certain officers within the RAF have made their feelings about aircraft carriers and/or services operating them very clear.

QECV and F-35 are endorsed at the highest level. Why doesn't the RAF try to arrange a few Rafale-M cockpits to acquire the skill set - oh, AOC 1 Gp burnt that bridge didn't he? Would one like one's cake or to eat it Sir?

The RAF, or certain officers within it, would be the first to cry foul if the RN started making mistakes in operating QECV born out of lack of experience in FW ops. It seems ridiculous to me (given Haddon-Cave et al) that the RAF could even dream of a light blue only JCA cadre operating off a platform manned by personnel with no experience of similar operations.

Oh and by the way. When the RN asked the RAF for help the answer was 'No'. When the RAF asked for access to the current exchange programme it was told that it would have to free up a reciprocal arrangement for RN to fly in Typhoon. At about that point things began to get tricky.

[FODPlod]

orca - Thank you. How refreshing to hear from someone privy to the facts instead of the more usual sound of grinding axes.

[Capt P U G Wash]

For all the dark blue honesty and candour – thank you; this is the clearest sign I have seen that RN ambition is to operate all aircraft afloat. It would be useful if this was made more prominent in Whitehall, then we really could crack on. And this I am afraid is why this problem generates pages and pages of arguing around the buoy here.
The new “small and perfectly formed” combat aircraft force of 2020 will not have room for inefficiencies. Because of the small size of the fixed wing FAA it has always struggled to recruit and retain enough aircrew to meet the requirement. Hence the solution has always been for the RN to operate a cadre within an RAF owned and operated force. The Newton study made this quite clear, although it never really addressed the proportions allocated to each Service in a mutually satisfactory way. I understand the agreed split was 66:33 to the RAF - is that still true?

If the issue is the attainment of embarked skill sets, then both Services need to grow them on exchanges. If the issue is FAA growth and sustainment then Defence needs to see the full (additional) costs of what that means and the risks inherent in delivering it against a small force size.
Of course, the RN could just aim to take the lot! So which is it?

[FB11]

Capt P U G Wash,

The Newton Study. Not something you will see many from a service oft quoting due to the repeated conclusion that didn't say what was required.

The change to F-35C has changed the dynamic and isome take the view that F-35C is more of a 'computer game' that is suited more to the Observer/Navigator mind than the mandraulic motor skills required to keep a Harrier away from the ground. Combine that with the belief that stepping on and off a carrier is a couple of sim trips and you're current again actually suggests the future JCA force could happily cope with a chap/chappess who has straight B's at GCSE. I don't subscribe to those views for what it's worth and I know that they are only at the extreme end of some people's views.

All that said, on your point it concluded that both services would struggle to fill such a small force (JFH and the JCA force of the future) because the 'accumulator' of pilots in the RAF couldn't simply swap across to a STOVL aircraft from, say, a Tornado cockpit. Bad example. Typhoon cockpit.

Does that change now? Not really. The size of the entire fast jet fleet in the 2020 timeframe and the requirement to be 'single seat or bust' will not make it that much easier to populate a cockpit whichever side of the recruiting fence you sit on if the metrics of today are still used. The French Navy doesn't seem to struggle to filling its cockpit seats sat alongside the bigger FAF brother. Even Belgium manages it.

Who knows what MFTS will look like once we realise what we're actually going to train and if we have the concept configured correctly to meet the training requirements of future aircraft types.

There were many aspects of Newton that did ring true but some read those with Nelson's eye or made differing conclusions on the same statement (both sides by the way.)

I wouldn't in any way suggest that the RN is trying to take back fixed wing aviation in exactly the same way the RAF isn't trying to eradicate the Fleet Air Arm (fixed wing) because neither of those 2 outcomes were concluded by Newton nor are they endorsed policy.

As for the inherent risks and additional costs of delivering against a small force, maybe the lack of a RN requirement to deliver a 4* from such a cadre might actually be an efficient way to man that part of the RN and therefore the JCA Force?

The US mans its naval and marine air forces at less than 2:1 so we can clearly follow suit can't we? Oh, hang on....

But you are of course spot on. Defence really does need to see the manpower structure costs of delivering such a small total force of UK fast jets in the 2020+ timeframe.

[ORAC]

Interesting snippet in the latest AW&ST article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/08/29/AW_08_29_2011_p24-363094.xml&headline=New%20Threat%20To%20F-35%20Joint%20Strike%20Fighter) about the Works memo and the possibility of either the B or C being cancelled. Looks like the B is no longer considered a viable option and the Rafale M is rearing it's head...

.........If the F-35C were to be canceled, the U.K. would withdraw from the program and "look for a European solution" to it's requirement for a carrier fighter, a senior U.K. official said in Washington earlier this month....

[Backwards PLT]

The RAF should concentrate on its own game rather than trying to make the FAA extinct.


LJ I think that you will find that that is exactly what the RAF is doing. The problem is how you view it - the RAF view is that their "game" is air power whilst the RN's "game" is maritime power so RN drive the ship, RAF fly the aircraft. Of course the RN view it as maritime air power therefore slipping conveniently into the RN (FAA) arena. If the role of the embarked aircraft was purely maritime, for example air defence of the fleet (SHar), anti surface / sub surface (helos) etc then it makes sense for it to be FAA as it is a purely maritime effect but given the far greater role for F35 it makes sense for it to be RAF or a mix of both.

I think that this is something that the RN doesn't really understand - the RAF isn't trying to destroy the FAA, it simply believes that it should be responsible for providing air power.

[cokecan]

ORAC, do you believe that?

i would have thought that if 'C' was cancelled the UK would get an superb F/A-18E/F/G deal from the US by way of apology/compensation/bribe not to go elsewhere.

is Rafale still in production - and for how long?

is Rafale a better carrier-borne (or indeed land-based) fighter/strike/reece/tanker than F/A-18E/F/G?

would Rafale 'fit' better into the RAF/RN than SuperHornet?

i would have thought that sharing an aircraft - and therefore, potentially, carriers, with the USN would have been far 'better' that sharing with the French - if only because they have more carriers. is this true?

i don't know any of these things, but if the RAF/RN are viewing a particular plan B it would be nice to put the 'right' answer in MP's minds asap...

[ORAC]

i would have thought that sharing an aircraft - and therefore, potentially, carriers, with the USN would have been far 'better' that sharing with the French I believe that decision has already been made and may lie behind the statement made above....

Britain and France to share aircraft carriers (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2682&thisSection=military)

[Justanopinion]

the RAF isn't trying to destroy the FAA, it simply believes that it should be responsible for providing air power.

And providing fixed wing air power from the sea is a specialised skill which cannot just be picked up and dropped as required.

The RAF are not best positioned to do this.

We need to bring the Carrier / Maritime Airpower / Strike experience which is currently being built in the States with the FAA into the UK F35 programme by way of the FAA/RAF mix currently proposed.

Of course the RN view it as maritime air power therefore slipping conveniently into the RN (FAA) arena

Because it is.

[Radar Command T/O]

If the role of the embarked aircraft was purely maritime, for example air defence of the fleet (SHar), anti surface / sub surface (helos) etc then it makes sense for it to be FAA as it is a purely maritime effect.

In other words, keep the RN at Sea and forbid it any influence over events on land. By this logic, shouldn't the Air Force limit itself purely to air to air engagements, ie QRA/no fly policing, since anything else effects the Land Theatre, and that's Army!

I think that this is something that the RN doesn't really understand - the RAF isn't trying to destroy the FAA, it simply believes that it should be responsible for providing air power.

It could also be argued that the RAF fails to understand that neatly separating the battlespace into Land, Sea and Air and allocating them purely to the Army, Air Force and Navy respectively doesn't work - there are always overlaps. Amphibious Ops, Maritime Patrol, CAS, Carrier Strike and even Base Defence (RAF Rgt?) all fall into these categories - operations from one environment influencing/supporting operations in another.

It would appear that the concept of "Jointery" isn't as advanced as we would like to believe.

[Justanopinion]

This is ridiculous, it's based on the basis of who flies aircraft as opposed to the task.

Lets posit carrier UAV instead of manned aircraft (and that's only 3-4 years off)

No its not.

We are fragged to get F35 C, Carrier variant JSF, and we need to be able to fly it from sea therefore the relevant experience is required.

[ORAC]

Defense Systems: Navy test replicates UAV landing on carrier (http://defensesystems.com/articles/2011/07/07/agg-navy-carrier-fa-18d-landing-test.aspx)

The first ever successful test of a carrier touchdown of an F/A-18D surrogate aircraft, replicating maneuvers of unmanned aerial vehicles, was completed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) by the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program office (PMA-268) July 2, according to a Navy press release.

The fact that the Navy was able to launch and land the surrogate is an indication that it is getting closer “to demonstrating that a tailless, strike-fighter-sized unmanned system can operate safely in the carrier environment,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, program manager of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System.

The Navy has worked for more than five years to plan for and update the ship’s systems to read the UAV’s data, and also integrate both networks with Precision Global Positioning System, all in preparation for the 2013 goal of an “autonomous landing of an actual unmanned, low-observable relevant aircraft on the aircraft carrier,” according to Engdahl.

Navy orders study on UCLASS concepts (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/27/navy-orders-study-on-uclass-concepts/)

The Navy wants an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft — or UCLASS — to fly off its carrier decks by 2018, and to that end it has awarded Boeing a contract to study just how it can get there, the aerospace company said Monday. Basically, from Boeing’s announcement, it sounds as though the Navy wants to lay down as much groundwork as possible to prove that it’ll be possible to take an aircraft, get it out to sea, on the cat, into the air and then trap it back on board.

From Boeing’s announcement:

Boeing has received a $480,000 study contract from the U.S. Navy to support pre-Milestone A activities including development of a concept of operations, an analysis of alternatives, and an investigation of potential material solutions for the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program.

“The Navy wants UCLASS in the fleet in 2018,” said Jimmy Dodd, vice president, Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft. “Boeing has been delivering carrier-based aircraft to the Navy since 1925. With Boeing’s broad experience in unmanned systems and rapid prototyping, and nearly 90 years of carrier-based aircraft know-how, we are prepared to meet that schedule to support the mission and requirements the Navy establishes. This contract is the start of that.”

The UCLASS system will consist of an air segment, a connectivity and control segment, a Carrier Vessel-Nuclear (CVN) segment (launch and recovery), and a systems support segment. The work on the eight-month contract, according to the Navy’s Broad Agency Announcement, will conceptually demonstrate that a UCLASS system can provide a persistent CVN-based Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............

[Justanopinion]

supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............

Supporting being the critical word, not replacing

[ORAC]

supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............

.....The work on the eight-month contract, according to the Navy’s Broad Agency Announcement, will conceptually demonstrate that a UCLASS system can provide a persistent CVN-based Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............

[Justanopinion]

Still Supporting

[ORAC]

I would suggest that for a USN CVN wing including AAR, AEW, COD, Ew etc; then it might well be seen as "supporting".

But for a planned planned RN wing of 12 aircraft, a force of "persistent Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and Strike" UAS would be able to perform all required tasks except AD and to propose the loyal toast in Taranto night.

And if I was worried about organic AD it wouldn't go to sea without an effective AEW and with an aircraft with a limited load of AAW Mx...

[SpazSinbad]

UK carrier to receive second EMALS production shipset, Fox confirms
By Peter Felstead 9/12/2011

Defence Security Report (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065930314)

"The second production shipset of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) being developed by General Atomics for the US Navy's upcoming Gerald R Ford-class aircraft carriers will be fitted to Prince of Wales, the British Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class carrier that will be configured for the F-35C carrier variant (CV) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the UK Defence Secretary has confirmed.

Speaking to Jane's in the run-up to the Defence Security and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition, held in London from 13-16 September, Dr Liam Fox said: "We now have a slot for the EMALS catapult system being fitted. It will be fitted first of all to the Gerald R Ford , then the next slot will be for the British carrier and the next slot will be for the American John F Kennedy carrier. So we've got that confirmed from the Americans now; the Americans have successfully tested it."

The US Navy first used EMALS to launch a manned aircraft, an F/A-18E Rhino strike fighter, on 18 December 2010 at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) EMALS trials facility at Lakehurst, New Jersey...."

[Navaleye]

From the Evening Standard.

UK planes to fly from US carrier | News (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23993917-uk-planes-to-fly-from-us-carrier.do)

I'm not how they arrive at their conclusion.

[SpazSinbad]

F-35B Finally Lands on the Wasp! by Amy Butler at Oct/3/2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af697a44f-732a-447b-842f-b01523428b9a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest (wlmailhtml:{FAFE942E-143E-4395-9771-6D5D3784C71D}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af697a44f-732a-447b-842f-b01523428b9a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

"The F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing Joint Strike Fighter has taken a step forward in its testing program today with the first landing onboard the USS Wasp...

...A second F-35B is expected onboard within days; two aircraft were
outfitted with monitoring equipment for this test period. A test phase will
follow including roughly ['roughly'? funny girl :D ] 67 vertical landings...."
_________________________

F-35B makes first vertical landing at sea By Dave Majumdar
Monday Oct 3, 2011

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/marine-defense-f-35b-makes-first-vertical-landing-at-sea-100311w/ (wlmailhtml:{FAFE942E-143E-4395-9771-6D5D3784C71D}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/marine-defense-f-35b-makes-first-vertical-landing-at-sea-100311w/)

"...The aircraft, called BF-2, made the landing at 3:20 p.m. Eastern time
over the Atlantic onboard the USS Wasp...."

[SpazSinbad]

There was a database error (this VL does not compute? or 'computer says no...') hence temporary double post and any way....

F 35B 1st Landing on USS WASP - Utube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cAmCCmObw&feature=feedu (wlmailhtml:{FAFE942E-143E-4395-9771-6D5D3784C71D}mid://00000006/!x-usc:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cAmCCmObw&feature=feedu)

"Uploaded by usnavy on Oct 3, 2011
F-35B test aircraft completes its first landing aboard USS Wasp."

Click on thumbnails for the bigger picture:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_F35B1stLandingonUSSWASP03oct2011.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/F35B1stLandingonUSSWASP03oct2011.jpg)http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_F35B1stLandingonUSSWASP03oct2011zoomED.gif (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/F35B1stLandingonUSSWASP03oct2011zoomED.gif)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_FirstF-35BwaspVL1.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/FirstF-35BwaspVL1.jpg)http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_FirstF-35BwaspVL2.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/FirstF-35BwaspVL2.jpg)

[SpazSinbad]

Latest USN LSO newsletter PDF Oct 2011 has a story about CVF change over to F-35Cs with RN staff getting the gen for the future:

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyOctober2011.pdf (1.5Mb)

Building the Queen Elizabeth
"...Over the course of two weeks in September, officers from the Royal Navy and engineers from Aircraft Carrier Alliance (the company spearheading the design and development process) conducted a development seminar at the Landing Signal Officer School. In addition to the LSO School Staff, Captain Stoops (Former CVN-73 Air Boss) and CDR Bulis (Current CVN-75 Air Boss) were also in attendance to lend their expertise....

...After much debate and discussion, to include extensive LSO-related presentations by the LSO School Staff, the decision was made for the LSO Platform to be located at the exact same position in relation to the intended hook touchdown point as it is on our Nimitz class ships...."

More to the story in the PDF

[ORAC]

Ares: Video: F-35C Launches From EMALS (http://defensetech.org/2011/11/28/video-f-35c-launches-from-emals/)

[Bevo]

No need for aircraft without the carriers.

The UK will "certainly" not be able to operate both Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers in 2020 if the Royal Navy is reduced to 29,000 personnel in line with current planning, the head of the Royal Navy has said.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, speaking at a Henry Jackson Society event on 24 November, said that manpower was one of his most "significant concerns" regarding the future of the navy.

Current navy assumptions will see the second-in-class aircraft carrier fitted with catapults and arrestor wire ready to operate the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter carrier variant in 2020, but the fate of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which will launch first and be used to train crews in handling HMS Prince of Wales, is less certain.

"There's a people issue here," said Admiral Stanhope. "I don't have enough people in a 29,000 navy to operate two aircraft carriers."Navy will be 'too small for two carriers' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18127)

[jamesdevice]

Well, if they were to go down the route of crewless frigates, then they'll have enough spare crew for the carriers.. DARPA are already planning such ships - see US crewless, automated ghost-frigate project takes shape ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/22/actuv_contracts/)
Of course the ideas not new - see this german test from 1928
Image of crewless warship in mock battle - august-1928 by Science & Society Picture Library (http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10556568&screenwidth=1280)

Now if we were to give up on the F-35, maybe buy a few second hand F-18s as a stopgap and instead go for unmanned fighters then the manpower situation would be even better. By the time the carriers will supposedly be fully capable in 2030 with a full air wing, then the F-35 will be superceded technology anyway: everything will be UAV. Time to make the jump NOW

[FB11]

Jamesdevice,

Unmanned aircraft save 1 person airborne - the pilot - but according to Wiki at the time of writing, 39 Sqn had around 90 people to operate 2 (increasing to 6) Reaper.

Of those there are twelve 3-man crews. 36 'crew' As compared to what would be between 4 and 12 pilots if they were manned aircraft.

And how many more are added to the engineering teams to deal with the real time data link/uplinks blah blah blah...

The 8 aircraft Harrier det at KAF operated with around 100 total personnel.

I do grant you, Flying Pay bills will probably be less with UAV.

[jamesdevice]

FB11
you're forgetting that by then the UAVs will be autonomous....
Dial in the destination, specify the targets(s) or target types, launch them and forget them till its time to land. And even that can be done autonomously.

[Wrathmonk]

specify the targets(s) or target types, launch them and forget them till its time to land

Love to hear your views on how that will work for CAS and TiCs (amongst other tasks that currently require a human in the loop) ...

[FB11]

Jamesdevice,

Oh, of course 'autonomous'; the new catch-all for those who believe manned aviation is over by Christmas and there'll be a surplus of pilot brevets sitting on a shelf somewhere in Stafford.

Who dials in the targets? Who has done the analysis on the targets in the first place? What happens when the targets move?

Do these automonous air vehicles have self loading fuel; weapons; mission data and engineering? Are the air vehicles just sent over the border to drone around (pun intended) and come back after 5 hours having decided how to react in the ever changing environment of a real battle space?

Warfare will always involve people in the loop when it comes to delivering violence to the enemy. We are many, many years, (if indeed a politician would ever allow), autonomous vehicles on land, sea or air being let loose to have a scrap.

The level of autonomy you suggest about may even remove the 3 crew from the console in Creech but I struggle to see how taking the biological mass out of the cockpit (or remote cockpit) will do what you initially suggested which was to reduce manpower.

The flying pay savings still stand though.

[GreenKnight121]

There are only 2 ways unmanned aircraft save money... reducing the size & complexity of an aircraft by removing the cockpit & life support systems (including bang seats), and reducing the training costs for aircrew (note I said reduce, not eliminate).

The main drive for unmanned aircraft comes from 2 points... eliminating the political cost of losing pilots in combat (or having them be captured), and increasing range and/or payload due to not having to consider human factors in aircraft design and mission planning.

Even so-called "autonomous" combat aircraft still have data-links allowing a controller to monitor it in real-time, and to take control if the situation changes or something malfunctions... and this communication is subject to jamming, etc, while a piloted aircraft is not.

In a manned aircraft, the pilot is "on location" and can make changes and decisions without communicating outside the aircraft.

[glojo]

I feel guilty about having this conversation on the Harrier thread and hopefully this is a better location for this type of discussion?

No idea re F35 buddy stores (or more precisley wet wing hardpoints). Daft way to use a $150M strikefighter if you ask me. TOTALLY 100% agree and please do not think this was my idea. I was just the messenger.

The U.K. has asked Lockheed Martin to assess the feasibility of using the F-35C in a buddy-buddy refueling mode. Under rules of the JSF program, countries must themselves fund studies into unique capabilities they want for an aircraft. Since the U.S. can rely on F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as carrier-based refuelers, the U.K. has to finance the engineering assessment on its own. It seems crazy that at this late stage our Ministry of defence does not have a finite requirement of what is required for a complete air package for this 21st century state of the art carrier.

I think it is a given that having multiple types of aircraft will be an extremely expensive option but surely having to develop a fourth generation aircraft to carry out such a mundane task is going to be a HUGE expense and a horrible waste of a valuable resource?

The more I think about the S3B option, the more it appeals. Another question... I accept the 35C is supposed to be a stealth aircraft but would it also be worth having the Growler as part of your air group? Or if the EW requirement is required would you opt for the older Prowler?

PLEASE accept my apologies for jumping ship but this does appear to be a more apt place to have this discussion. :O:O

Will the first completed carrier still have the ski slope and if so why, unless I guess they operate up in the Artic circle where they might be able to take advantage of the snow? :8 (apologies for my humour)

[green granite]

This is a perfect example of why all MOD projects are late and cost many times more than the original estimate. They cannot seem to grasp the concept of design freeze.

[Not_a_boffin]

QE will not have a ramp.

Thats relatively simple to fix and not really a design freeze issue.

The "support a/c" issue is one that is pertinent to US/UK and FR. Trouble is that the Common Support Aircraft (CSA), disappeared up it's own @rse in a plethora of weird low-signature complex a/c (go on, use Gary Google). Most of this appeared to be driven by the EA requirement, which as is now filled by the Growler, might allow a more common sense debate.

Requirement - Simple, low cost aircraft, capable of operating between SL and 35000ft, max speed 400kts, carrier compatible, able to have a disposable load of ~ 10-12te, sufficient internal volume to carry 2 crew, plus up to 3-4 MSO. NO STEALTH REQUIRED.

No powerpoint / Rhino art please, submissions to NAVAIR.....

[Bevo]

Well the aircraft and the carriers may end up available at the same time.

Fatigue testing and analysis are turning up so many potential cracks and "hot spots" in the Joint Strike Fighter's airframe that the production rate of the F-35 should be slowed further over the next few years, the program's head declared in an interview.

"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."

Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary.LINK (http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/01/jsf-build-and-test-was-miscalculation-production-must-slow-v/)

[GreenKnight121]

A bit further down in that same interview, Adm. Venlet said:

The required changes to the aircraft aren't a matter of safety or of the F-35's ability to perform its missions, Venlet said. They're necessary, though, to make sure the plane's structural parts last the 8,000 hours of service life required. Nor are the weaknesses surprising in the world of fighter jets, he added. The discoveries are "not a quote 'problem with the airplane,'" Venlet said. "It's a fighter made out of metal and composites. You always find some hot spots and cracks and you have to go make fixes. That's normal. This airplane was maybe thought to be a little bit better, wouldn't have so much discovery. Well, no. It's more like standard fighters."


Not as sensationalistic and useful to the "F-35 is worthless and needs to be canceled" crowd, but very important for us all to remember.

These aren't reasons to cancel the aircraft, but rather reasons to move back towards separating prototypes and developmental models from production models.

A bit more delay in IOC in order to "get it right the first time".

[glojo]

A bit more delay in IOC in order to "get it right the first time. Not the best choice of words and something that in all fairness to everyone involved with this aircraft... Probably an impossible dream.

I am NOT being critical of this specific aircraft, I would like to think I am being realistic and would simply ask what military aircraft in recent times has come straight out of the box and gone operational without 'teething problems'

Is the F-35 any better or any worse than its predecessors or do we now have the technology to detect all these issues?

I am still concerned over the lack of forethought into the make-up of the complete air package on these carriers and am still not convinced we will ever see them both fully operational. Will we have the man power to put these ships to sea?

To me the term fully operational means deploying overseas with an operational air group and being able to deploy anywhere in the World to carry out any task demanded by Her\His Majesty's Government.

I cringe at the thought of putting an E2 on the deck of a 21st century carrier and what next, the Fairey Swordfish?

No doubt the F-35C will have the ability to carry out automated landings aboard the carrier and this type of avionics will be expected on all carrier based aircraft. I dread to think of work involved to drag these older aircraft into the 21st century but experiences so far have dictated that this is not an easy, nor cheap task. I am still of the opinion that the cheapest option would be to bite the bullet and buy 'off the shelf' any and all support aircraft UNLESS the conversion work is achievable and at an agreed contract price!

*********************************************************

Unmanned Aircraft
Surely they are here and there numbers are increasing annually. Boots on the ground locating targets or even the UAV that can remain on site for 24hrs hunting targets of oppurtunity and then engaging with air to ground missiles?

Can these 'boots on the ground' launch their own radio controlled aircraft to illuminate a target or area they want hit and then have the larger UAV carry out the task? I am thinking back to Desert Storm and those evil 16" guns of the USS Missouri. The accuracy of her weapons was mainly down to this type of technology. Maybe our second or should that be first carrier might deploy with smaller UAVs :=

[Not_a_boffin]

Nothing wrong with the E2. Gary Google E2D and see a brand new, straight off the production line cab that does exactly what is required. Doesn't need to do Mach 2, doesn't need to have the RCS of a gnats @rse, just needs to work well every day.

[glojo]

Nothing wrong with the E2. Gary Google E2D and see a brand new, straight off the production line cab that does exactly what is required. Doesn't need to do Mach 2, doesn't need to have the RCS of a gnats @rse, just needs to work well every day. Wise words (http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html) :O:O

Off the shelf and just what the doctor ordered. That surely means we will not buy it?



A completely new radar featuring both mechanical and electronic scanning capabilities
Fully Integrated "All Glass" Tactical Cockpit
Advanced Identification Friend or Foe System
New Mission Computer and Tactical Workstations
Electronic Support Measures Enhancements
Modernized Communications and Data Link Suite



Why would I want an E2D flashlight (http://www.facebook.com/notes/check-price-tool-equipment/priceinusa-e2d-led-defender-flashlight-more-detail/181682108589273)? HUMOUR

[Mach Two]

As mentioned days ago, it's not just an aircraft carrier with a few strike fighters on board (with or without fatigue cracks), it's a complete, integrated package of ships, systems, sensors. And that includes AEW/AWACS. E2D looks like a good solution.

On the lighter side: Sun King Hey Ya - YouTube (http://youtu.be/QEkYqL9n7vo)

[Not_a_boffin]

Always preferred this one myself...

Navy Carrier Squadrons "Move Along" - YouTube

On the serious side, the "support a/c" need funding, which right now, we ain't got. However, you can build up the components gradually over time. Much like the gun for Typhoon momentum eventually builds and you find a way. As opposed to giving up in the first place.

[LowObservable]

I don't know whether other aircraft have had the same level of structural problems, but the F-35 program is founded on a high level of concurrency, so the impact on the program's economics in the next few years will be substantial - at a point where spending is getting choked off.

[ORAC]

Bill Sweetman blog on Ares on the cracking. Blog report doesn't real add anything new, but the tone and subsequent 9 pages of comments are a cracker! (no pun intended) :p:p

Cracks of Doom (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3acd1a7c43-09f6-4c2e-b373-26adf292eb7c&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

In a related report, and perhaps because of expected cuts/cancellation/risks in the programme: GE and Rolls Terminate F136 and FET (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a93dc8acf-d4f7-4ca0-8f3c-330bf9be12d0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[Modern Elmo]

Re that video: looks to me that those USN aircraft carrier people have too much free time.

And some of them need haircuts. :cool:

[Mach Two]

Elmo, good point. They do keep themselves pretty busy on RN carriers. Sorry, DID! But the long winter nights must leave a tille time for something. :ok:

[APG63]

Yes. If there's free time on RN carriers, there must be some on US ones. Let's face it, they can't even have a drink!!!! :(

[alfred_the_great]

Elmo - you'll find out when you all embark in the QE Class for 6 months at a time.

[Modern Elmo]

Are you saying that a Navy sailerperson's life aboard ship nowadays is dull or difficult?

Those floating airfields have a large-ish contigent of female sailers. They're l-u-u-v boats. A of young women get pregnant while on a USN cruise.

The girls more or less get rewarded instead of punished for getting that way during a deployment.

Military readiness and effectiveness gets a second place to gender inclusiveness and the "right" to sexual self-expression.

[ORAC]

Dusk Approaches For the Big Deck Nuclear Carrier Age (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8944323/Euro-summit-rocked-by-row-over-veto-plan.html)

[The Helpful Stacker]

ORAC - Is this (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/12/dusk-approaches-for-big-deck-nuclear.html) the link you were looking for?

[GreenKnight121]

ORAC... clicking on your link gets me: Euro summit rocked by row over veto plan
A rebellion by Finland, the Netherlands and Ireland is threatening to torpedo the Brussels summit plans – despite repeated warnings that today is the last chance to save the euro.

I don't think this was what you were linking to... I looked around their sub-headings but couldn't find anything that matched the title of your link.

[ORAC]

Ares: Rebuilding the UK’s Carrier Fleet (http://defensetech.org/2012/01/09/rebuilding-the-uks-carrier-fleet/)

As we mentioned they would last week, American Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his British counterpart, Philip Hammond, signed an agreement last Thursday outlining how the U.S. Navy will help the Royal Navy rebuild its defunct carrier strike capability over the next decade.

From sister site DoDBuzzSecretaries Panetta and Hammond signed a Statement of Intent on Carrier Cooperation and Maritime Power Projection that will serve as the framework for increased cooperation and interoperability on the use of aircraft carriers, as well as provide the basis for the U.S. to assist the UK Royal Navy in developing its next generation of aircraft carriers. This cooperation is a cutting-edge example of close allies working together in a time of fiscal austerity to deliver a capability needed to maintain our global military edge. The Royal Navy decommissioned its Harrier jump jets last year, leaving it without seaborne-fighter for the first time since before World War II. Now, Hammond himself expressed concern about what effect the Pentagon’s slowdown of its F-35 buys (http://defensetech.org/2012/01/05/uk-concerned-about-f-35-slowdown/) will have on the UK’s F-35C purchases before he signed the agreement. However, InsideDefense is reporting that the F-35 program office is gearing up to sell jets plenty to foreign JSF buyers despite the Pentagon’s slowed buys:The F-35 joint program office is girding for a surge of international orders that would boost manufacturing rates for the seventh and eighth Joint Strike Fighter production runs by more than 40 percent above currently planned buys for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, according to Defense Department officials. Ok, so maybe the Brits will get their jets in time to have at least limited carrier ops by 2020.

But wait, the UK is not only buying new F-35C Joint Strike Fighters to fly off its carriers, it’s fielding a brand new class of super carrier that uses electromagnetic catapults and arrestor wires. The Royal Navy hasn’t fielded one of these so called CATOBAR carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R09))since the 1970s, so it will be relearning how to operate this type of ship from the U.S. Ironic considering it was the British who invented the keystones of modern aircraft carrier design; an angled flight deck, the optical landing system and even the steam powered catapult that will be replaced by electromagnetic ones on the U.S. and British navies next aircraft carriers (http://defensetech.org/2011/09/29/emals-launches-an-e-2d-advanced-hawkeye/).

[glojo]

This is a question and certainly not an opinion:

Is this America attempting to keep all its prospective overseas buyers onboard? Words like...... Ship\leaving\rodents\sinking.. may come to mind!

Have they guaranteed delivery dates that might have penalty clauses?

Thankfully our first carrier aka HMS White Elephant will not be capable of playing with these state of the art toys which means that we may have wiggle room that would cater for any delays in the time line for this aircraft.

I'm just having a quiet little chuckle..
We build a carrier that cannot launch or recover aircraft and the Americans have an aircraft with a hook that does not 'hook'

Apologies for my humour and I ACCEPT the F-35C is still a work in progress and these issues will be resolved.

On our local news this morning an expert on our Royal Navy was claiming that we now had just NINETEEN frigates\destroyers. I find that figure amazing or should that be disturbing! If this is the case then by the time these carriers enter service how many ships will there be? Will there be sufficient to carry out the requirements placed upon it by Her Majesty's Government.

Putting a carrier to sea without the support of a combined battle group or at the very least an escort is something I have never experienced but with such a limited number of warships can that commitment be fulfilled? Note these are still questions.

Will there be the sailors to man these ships when and if they are commissioned, I have read articles which suggest the crew of the first ship will work that one up and then when the second ship joins the fleet... they all step across! Lots of questions regarding that suggestion.

Apologies if this attempts to take the subject off topic but it might be relevant to cost but possibly not the financial cost. More to do with the sailors and there limited availability.

[Courtney Mil]

the F-35C is still a work in progress and these issues will be resolved.

Or will they, Glo? It may take a major redesign from what Engines is saying about this. [Edit: sorry, just realized you saw that one]

Your point about the battle group, manning and the number of ships (eh?) is well made.

Courtney

[glojo]

I guess you and I are both on the same page, how many times have we heard about delays that we are assured are minor issues that will be easily rectified.

The building of these carriers is still going ahead and what government wants to be seen putting these ships to sea without aircraft?

The Silent Service has been quiet for far too long, why no pictures of the First Sea Lord aboard one of the best carriers that sail the high seas. Where is the coverage of him standing by an F-18, being shot off the deck in that excellent tried and trusted aircraft? Apologies if I missed it but that may also highlight the lack of coverage. Putting it in the Navy News (http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3211) is not getting the story out to the public and is not stimulating folks to start asking all these questions.

Some commanders have a staff car with chauffeur others have an F-18 with driver.. Note the name of the back seater.... Rear Admiral Craig Faller, Commander of US Carrier Strike Group 3
http://www.navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/12010901ax-2.jpg

Looks like we have several threads that are all intertwined :)

[Widger]

I didn't want to start a seperate thread as there would be cries of 'what has this got to do with aviation?' but, I see that the contracts for the Tankers that will support CVF have been signed......to a South Korean company!!:{:confused::confused::sad::(

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | MOD to order four new RFA tankers (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ModToOrderFourNewRfaTankers.htm)

What a sad state we are in when the UK is not in a position to build its own Naval vessels.

[althenick]

A number of British companies took part in the competition, but none submitted a final bid for the build contract. In light of this, the best option for Defence, and value for money for taxpayers, is for the tankers to be constructed in South Korea by DSME.

Thoughts here are
The UK Shipbuilding industry has its order books full
The UK Shipbuilding industry isnt prepared to suffer HMG imposed delays ala CVF
The UK Shipbuilding industry couldn't come up with a low enough bid.

or the most plausable reason

HMG is sending a waring shot over BAE Systems bows

[Not_a_boffin]

How soon they forget, this is old news.

Anyone remember Paul Drayson's "Maritime Industrial Strategy"? Part of that was to allow the build of "warlike ships" (ie RFA) in overseas yards for the entirely sensible reason that the extant British shipbuilding industry is run and owned by defence contractors and with the exception of Babcocks Appledore and BAE Govan have zero expertise in building non-warships efficiently. The last RFA built in the UK (the two Wave class) cost around £160M each back in 2000/2001. The going price for commercial product carriers of about the same size was around $US50M. Now admittedly, the RFA requirement has generally higher speed (by 4-5 knots) and much more accommodation space (80-odd vs 15), plus hangar and flightdeck than the equivalent commercial tanker, so you would expect a higher price, but 5 times the price? I don't think so.

As a result, the entirely sensible decision was taken to allow the use of foreign yards to build some or all of the ships. That is what foreign yards (particularly advanced ones like Korea) do. They churn out what is effectively a very large box of coated steel, with a more complex machinery and accommodation block at one end and some pipework over the weather deck very efficiently and hence cheaply, but at good quality. If you really want cheap, you go to China or Vietnam, but quality can suffer.

The scandal here is that it has taken around eight years or more and around £20M spent fannying about, before being able to place an order. Apparently MoD were unable to make a decision on the following options, which it took them years to define (!) :


Design & Build in UK very expensive / unaffordable
Commercial off the shelf, cheap and quickly available, but no designs meet requirement
Get competent company to design to requirement and then foreign builder to produce at affordable price


They actually got to a tender point on the last bullet in 2008/2009, where the MoD IPT was actually in Korea, when as part of the usual PR rounds, the funding was moved. At the time there was a worldwide shipbuilding glut, yards were literally giving build slots away to get work in, but no, we had a PR round to follow and so ended up receiving a stiff letter from the S Korean MoD protesting that their yards (HHI and DSME) were being d1cked around.

Incidentally, I'm told that one Korean yard was offering to deliver all four hulls in around 15 months and was turned down because MoD "couldn't accept them at that rate".

The going rate for a product carrier of that size is currently $US70M, (or £45M). The contract price for all four, excluding the add-ons like RAS gear and comms, plus the assistance of BAES in Korea to help define the design, is £452M. Only 2.5 times the going rate then.......There are Koreans crying with laughter as we debate this.

[Pheasant]

Didn't Paul Grayson play rugby for England? And another one played cricket for England, didn't he?

[GreenKnight121]

BAE told the government that the only way they could start work on any MARS ships would be to delay work on POW & the T-26s, as there is no "spare" capacity in their yards.

In order for these ships to have been built in the UK, there would have needed to have been a regular set of additional ship orders over the last 15-20 years that would have preserved more shipyards.

[Harley Quinn]

Didn't Paul Grayson play rugby for England? And another one played cricket for England, didn't he?

Yes there were two Graysons, born in the same year, but as the former ministers name is Drayson it is yet another irrelevant bit of drivel like so much in this thread.:ugh:

[ORAC]

Defense-Aerospace.com: France Could Loan Rafales to Royal Navy (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=132961&cat=5)

PARIS --- The Anglo-French defense initiative announced last week did not mention bilateral cooperation on aircraft carriers because Britain still has to firm up its intentions in this field, according to France’s top weapons buyer.

Lauren Collet-Billon, head of the Direction Generale de l’Armement, said during a Feb. 22 press conference here that Britain still has to finalize its aircraft carrier plans, including major technical options such as the kind of catapults it wants to fit to its new aircraft carriers, and what kind of aircraft these ships will finally operate. Initially, Britain wanted to buy the F-35B STOV/L variant to replace its Harriers, but subsequently shifted to the F-35C carrier variant which, like the entire program, has run into substantial technical difficulties.

The F-35 “is an ambitious program, and like all ambitious programs it faces a number of challenges,” Collet-Billon said, adding that bilateral cooperation in the field of aircraft carriers will depend on how British programs.

“If one day we have to lend Rafale Ms to the Royal Navy, why not? Personally, I’d find that very pleasing,” Collet-Billon said. ..............

[glojo]

including major technical options such as the kind of catapults it wants to fit to its new aircraft carriers, and what kind of aircraft these ships will finally operate.

Do we have any options regarding type of launch system. I must confess to assuming these carriers would have conventional steam powered propulsion but was soon put right and these ships have possibly stolen the engines from the scrapped Nimrod program!!:sad::=

In other words they are powered by gas turbines and they do not produce steam that is anywhere near suitable for operating conventional type catapults so what options do we have? :)

[FODPlod]

glojo - It has been discussed on PPRuNe several times but the QE Class carriers (at least one, anyway) will employ the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System)) which has already been tested on land and is currently being installed in USS Gerald R Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_%28CVN-78%29#Launch_systems).

Look Mum, no steam!

[glojo]

Good morning FodPlod,
MANY apologies if my post was in any way confusing... I was responding to the suggestion that we have a choice regarding type of launch system. I am in total and full agreement with your observations.

The EMALS catapult is the system that will be used, there are no other systems being considered and it is not going to change.

Did I read somewhere that the decision has been made to now fit BOTH carriers with the full kit to operate the F-35C?

Apologies if I caused any confusion.

John

[FODPlod]

glojo - Fairy snuff. I didn't think you could be that far astern of the curve. :p

Good morning to you, too.

[glojo]

I'm still coming to terms with not waiting for the ship to roll before firing off my broadside!! :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Can't wait for the commissioning :(

[fran1678]

Hi I am David Morgan's sister and although slightly biased, I would reccomend his book as being just a true account of the events the book was written about. I have read , well attemped to read, Sharkey's book but felt the real personal touch was not there!

[orca]

Hello Fran,

I enjoyed your brother's book, but I have also made it through Sharkey's book a couple of times now and even subjected myself to 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands', which I found a little incoherent.

My personal highlight in Sharkey's book was when he sensed insubordination on 801 so took the offender up for some ACM and won....quite what that proved I have no idea. A little weird in my opinion. Your brother's best bit is when he tries to float out of his cabin to see his disciple....I mean, you wouldn't lie about that would you!;)

[Not_a_boffin]

Just as a counter point to some of the doom & gloom. Progress on the build of QE at Rosyth.

Assembly phase reveals Queen Elizabeth scale | Opinion | The Engineer (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/assembly-phase-reveals-queen-elizabeth-scale/1011893.article)

I must confess that I had not expected them to be at the point of locking off compartments yet. To put this in some sort of time perspective, the components of the superblock have arrived in Rosyth from August onwards, with some of the sponson blocks having been built in Rosyth earlier.

[ICBM]

I enjoyed your brother's book, but I have also made it through Sharkey's book a couple of times now and even subjected myself to 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands', which I found a little incoherent.

I too have read all three books and have found each perspective both interesting and unique to the person writing - exactly how one might expect a 'personal' account of the situation they found themselves in. I particularly enjoyed Harrier Ground Attack Falklands if I'm honest and can't really agree with Orca this time on its incoherence(?) Jerry was, in my humble opinion, rightfully frustrated by a rather boisterous RN carrier command chain at the time whose priority was certainly not launching ground attack and CAS sorties but instead seemed to purposefully ignore the very role they were there to carry out. This attitude smarted Sharkey as well - even their own FAA Sea Harrier pilots weren't spared the BS it would seem.

Thread creep from the OP (and I apologise to all) but these books have to be read with respect for the perspective they were written from - the FI campaign was no success story in many many areas but if you want to understand the challenges involved in operating both RN and RAF aircraft from a carrier at war in the early 1980s, from an aircrew side, read all three!

Regards,

ICBM

[WE Branch Fanatic]

More progress: Giant hull sections of Queen Elizabeth carrier joined at Clyde yard (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17656638) - BBC

Also here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9194103/Major-milestone-for-Royal-Navy-warship.html) from the Telegraph.

Wait a minute - was Queen Elizabeth not meant to enter service in 2014 - and since she is not getting catapults and arresting gear, that should not have changed?

Also of note (and also from the Telegraph): New delay over fighter jet choice (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164950/New-delay-over-fighter-jet-choice.html)

If F35B is picked, then surely the RN Pilots sent stateside to fly would be better off flying Harriers - and we could do with embarking Harriers to maintain the skills of carrier crews? I wonder if the cost issue is the only one, or if training and skills (and current capabilities this decade) come into it? Issues which, of course, were discussed elsewhere (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html) on PPRuNe as well as on this thread.

I realise that there is a thread discussing just this question (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b.html), but thought I would put it here for completeness.

[GreenKnight121]

Wait a minute - was Queen Elizabeth not meant to enter service in 2014 - and since she is not getting catapults and arresting gear, that should not have changed?

That was changed even before construction of the blocks began.

"Aircraft carriers delayed" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7776695.stm)

Thursday, 11 December 2008

The Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers are likely to enter service a year or two later than planned, Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced.
In a statement to MPs, he added there would be no delay in construction - but work would continue at a slower pace, sustaining jobs for longer.
The £4bn shipbuilding project is due to begin next spring.


"House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 Nov 2011" (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111121/text/111121w0002.htm#11112129000337)

Peter Luff [holding answer 15 November 2011]: The planned in-service dates for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are 2016 and 2018 respectively—however, these dates may change once our conversion investigations are complete and we have decided which ship will be converted.

[Mach Two]

If F35B is picked, then surely the RN Pilots sent stateside to fly would be better off flying Harriers - and we could do with embarking Harriers to maintain the skills of carrier crews?

We don't have any to embark. The UK doesn't operate Harriers.

If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have. Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet.

[Courtney Mil]

The UK doesn't operate Harriers.

You really shouldn't have told him that. I don't think he knew. Maybe that's why he hardly ever mentions it.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

GK121

Interesting. Surely if the build was slowed for political reasons, then it can be speeded back up?

Also I understand that there is nothing to stop Illustrious being retained post 2014 (until QE comes along). Even in a LPH role, having more than one flat top gives a margin of safety in case of accidents or other unexpected things (Lusty recently sustained some damage on exercise). Things do crop up - like this possible deployment to Somalia (http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Royal-Navy-tackle-Somali-pirates/story-15694141-detail/story.html).

Mach Two

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B" thread? (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b.html)

We don't have any to embark. The UK doesn't operate Harriers.

I have noticed that. But other countries do, and their jets could be embarked. There was also talk at one time of an RN Hornet squadron - why not an RN AV8B squadron?

If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have.

What about the guys flying the F/A18? The UK has never operated that, and I think the idea for RN guys to fly them was to build CTOL experience. If the future is not CTOL, but V/STOL, then perhaps training on AV8B will be more suitable for a future transition of F35B? An RN AV8B squadron has other attractions too (such as giving us back a task force capability this decade). The politicians (the PM mostly) looked into the crystal ball with closed eyes, and saw nothing unexpected this decade.

The Americans want to UK to have a decent carrier capability - seeing us as a very important ally.

Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet.

Hmm! I am not sure the Officers quoted here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8799280/Royal-Navy-sackings-will-lose-aircraft-carriers-skills-forever.html) would agree:

The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.

Or indeed the First Sea Lord: Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110511/DEFSECT03/105110307/Loss-of-Carrier-Strike-Capability-Top-Concern-of-Royal-Navy-Chief)

F35B or F35C, we still have to get there. Current policy does not answer several key questions?

How will we maintain and develop carrier related skills this decade?

What will we do if we need to provide a task group with air defence beyond the range of ship based sensors and weapons, or if ROE demand positive ID before things can be engaged?

How will we make up for the shortfall in maritime force projection, given that SSN numbers will decline this decade, so there will be less TLAM shooters, and Apache is limited in sped, range, and payload, and available only in limited numbers?

These were (and still are) the issues discussed on the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html).

In late 2009 I remember listening to a briefing by the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer, who emphasised the need to have more jets embarked as sea for longer periods, to build up both individual and corporate experience. Sometimes the whole ship aspects are forgotten about - but they are key to safe and efficient aviation operations.

A lot of things have to come together, not just the chockheads being confident and experienced in handling jets on a moving deck, but also the OOW keeping the ship on the right course and speed and understanding the movement limitations ship and aircraft place upon each other, the watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre keeping the deck trim and flashing up power when needed, operators and maintainers of various sensors, communications, and landing aids, the Cdr(Air) et al running things, etc.

I am very reluctant to post an article by a politician who was described as a failure by those she was/is meant to represent (as their MP), but here we go:

'The government only has itself to blame for any carrier strike U-turn' (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=19130)

[Mach Two]

WEBF,

I think you missed my point. I'm well aware of all the other threads discussing this issue, I only responded to you as you posted it here "for completeness."

Whilst I admire your single-issue enthusiasm, the facts are quite plain. The Government have little appetite to pay for sea power at the moment and the next one will be even less on side. We are out of the VTOL/VSTOL/etc game and the carrier game. My comments reflect only how I read the mood of those that hold the purse strings.

Perhaps we'd all be better off focussing on having essential future capability rather than worrying about what colour it is or whether it looks like a Harrier or not.

M2

[GreenKnight121]

WEBF... "The sky is falling" scare-tactic headlines and grandstanding by officers who should know better aside, the reality is that the RN has the situation well in hand.


The reality is that there are currently RN personnel assigned to the various flight deck divisions on some USN carriers, others attending the LSO (Landing Signals Officer) school in the US, and the USN is working with the RN (currently in the early stages) to establish a full training program for the RN's flight deck crewmen.

By the time PoW is ready to land her first aircraft (F-35C, T-45C, or whatever) there will be a fully trained flight deck crew of RN sailors aboard... most of whom will have spent at least a little time aboard a USN CVN flight deck, working beside the American flight deck crew.

[andrewn]

That sounds really promising GK121, but the reality is that it only takes one small budgetary cut (over here) and that process you describe stops and all that "promise" turns into another, permanent, capability loss.


I'm not fully up to speed on all pages of this thread, but I think the fundamental questions are:
Will we ever see either of the carriers in service with the RN?
If one or both does go into service will they ever embark any UK owned FJ's (a la F-35B/C)?
And I don't think anybody over here can answer these questions with a definitive "Yes" at this time. We have a long history of our armed services agreeing capability holidays which turn into permanent losses.

All IMO.

[ORAC]

Aircraft carrier section ready for loading onto Clyde barge (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19932065)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63485000/jpg/_63485019_carrierpatoo624.jpg

An 11,000-tonne section of aircraft carrier has been moved in preparation to leave its Clyde construction yard.

It took about two-and-a-half hours to shift the largest hull section of HMS Queen Elizabeth out of BAE's shipbuilding hall at Govan on Sunday. It will be loaded onto a huge sea-going barge on Tuesday in preparation for its 600-mile journey to the Rosyth dockyard in Fife. When it reaches its destination it will be joined to other carrier sections.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, which will be based in Portsmouth, is one of two aircraft carriers being delivered for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) by BAE Systems, Thales UK and Babcock.

The 11,000-tonne aft section of hull, known as Lower Block 04, stands more than 80m (262ft) long and 40m (131ft) wide. It houses two main engine rooms, a hospital complex, dentist, galley and accommodation including 242 berths.............

[The Helpful Stacker]

Can someone provide details of how big this piece of boat is in the standard media measurements?

How is one supposed to know how big this most albus member of the Elephantidae family is without recourse to measurements in double decker buses or Olympic-sized swimming pools?

[lj101]

I guess 30 ish x DD bus

Open to ridicule

[ColdCollation]

MUCH smaller than Wales.

[Not_a_boffin]

Based on the well-known and accepted Wiki standard (EN-BUS) for measurement tolerances, it's over 580 double-decker buses........

[TURIN]

Now, that begs the question, how far would Evil Knievel have got down the deck before the inevitable trip to hospital?

[ORAC]

Interesting, verrrry interesting......

Front Page: Indians Frustrated by Delay in Delivery of Carrier (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121014/DEFREG03/310140001/Indians-Frustrated-by-Delay-Delivery-Carrier?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

NEW DELHI — Despite paying more than $1.7 billion more than the contract amount for a used Russian aircraft carrier, India is in a bind: It cannot enforce a penalty for the delay of the much-needed former Admiral Gorshkov, nor can it get out of the deal.

The carrier — renamed Vikramaditya and first scheduled to arrive in 2008, then postponed until this year — will not arrive until the end of 2013, as it is having problems with its boilers and engine.

The admissions came during an Oct. 10 meeting between Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony and his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Serdyukov. According to Indian Ministry of Defence sources, Antony was unable to convince Serdyukov to enforce a penalty on the carrier delay.

India will be dependent on the Russian carrier until its home-built carriers come online in the 2019-2020 timeframe, said Rahul Gangal, director of Aviotech Defence and Aerospace Advisory.

“There have been other alternatives proposed; however, the Ministry of Defence has chosen to steer clear of those offers [for carriers],” Gangal said. “It would also be interesting to note whether there is an official offer made for the two [British] Royal Navy carriers being built, which are facing budgetary contractions..............

[glojo]

India are contractually bound to buy Russian aircraft for their carriers and those things need arrester wires to land on the deck of a carrier! Our 'state of the art' ships do not come with these options...

Now, that begs the question, how far would Evil Knievel have got down the deck before the inevitable trip to hospital?

I guess the answer would be that he would only need to travel a few decks down to get to the nearest hospital :8:)

[Navaleye]

We still have a company Called McTaggart Scott which have a modest track record in producing arrestor gear and still advertise them. perhaps if we had gone for these, the cost of fitting EMALS may have been so much cheaper.


MacTaggart Scott | Defence Products (http://www.mactag.com/86_DefenceProducts.html)

[Bigpants]

A week is a long time in politics...

By the time these ships are built HM the Queen may no longer be with us (hopefully not) Scotland could be independent and the bill dumped on Westminster for the divorce so crippling that anything might get the chop.

The decision to axe the Harrier was not in my opinion a good one containing an element of anger and spite caused by the new coalition government getting the true picture of MODs black hole.

Something for which they, the Labour politicians, senior civil servants and Chiefs of Staff etc were never punished for while those left to serve were left to muddle on with little money and unexpected demands like Libya.

The only up side is that in a period of political upheaval akin to the 1930s we may need to keep both ships. Let's not forget Hitler was elected in 1933, we were at war six years later and six years after that Europe in bits and on its way to a cold war that lasted 50 years...

[Extg3]

Helpful Stacker
This web site may help in translating into alternate measurements:
So, what's the velocity of a sheep in a vacuum? ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/)

[GreenKnight121]

I failed to find any mention of the ancient British standard of velocity... the airspeed of an unladen European Swallow!

[fallmonk]

Still find it very strange that the Indian Goverment cannot get out its contract for fear of being sued over the Vikramaditya.
But the builders/refurb co can run so late and so over budget and they cant do anything !
Almost makes you think the MoD wrote the contract lol

[Bismark]

From the horse's mouth (well SofS) at CAS's Air Power conference this morning - and on the record - "whenever CVF leaves the territorial waters of the UK it is to have 12 F35 embarked as the default setting." Didn't see that one coming!

[Wrathmonk]

whenever CVF leaves the territorial waters of the UK it is to have 12 F35 embarked as the default setting

But to be fair, by the time the CVF is in a position to leave UK territorial waters and the F35 is in service, there will have been at least 5 different SofS (and perhaps 2 (maybe 3) changes of government....) so plenty of space for back peddling and U turns. After all, the only way you can tell a politician is talking bull is when his lips move.:ok:

[Bismark]

I don't disagree Wrath, but given that work on SDSR 2015 has already started such a statement certainly helps shape the battlespace.

[orca]

Interesting news.

One assumes that SoS made this statement (in the place he did) because he had caught wind of an argument between a group of people who thought the carriers could (or perhaps should) sail with fewer aeroplanes and another group of people thought that they should sail with this amount or more.

I am wracking my grey matter to divine which side of the argument most of those at CAS's conference would ordinarily have supported.;)

[Bismark]

A lot of :sad: faces

[glojo]

Interesting statement and the trusty old Centaur at just about 22000 tons would have carried more aircraft including AEW and tankers :\ Still lots of room for the wafus along with their badminton courts, hockey pitches and most important the sun bathing areas ;);) (humour)

[hval]

If the default is for 12 F-35's to be on board the associated costs will not be worth incurring. Therefore CVF will never leave UK waters.

[SpazSinbad]

Hammond: Keep Both Carriers in Royal Navy Service | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121101/DEFREG01/311010003/Hammond-Keep-Both-Carriers-Royal-Navy-Service?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

Nov. 1, 2012 By ANDREW CHUTER ([email protected])

"...
The British F-35 fleet will be operated by a joint RAF/RN force. The exact number of aircraft to be purchased initially remains unclear, but media reports have put the figure at between 40 and 48.

The RAF has been arguing for a small number of aircraft to be routinely deployed on the carrier in the early years as the overall fleet of aircraft is built up. The number is unknown, but one RN source said it was in single figures.

Hammond appeared to end the debate, saying the RN would “routinely embark 12 jets when deployed outside home waters with an ability to surge that number higher in periods of tension.”

Land-based initial operating capability for the F-35 is scheduled for 2018, with initial flights off HMS Queen Elizabeth set for 2018, said Hammond...."

[orca]

hval,

Being a bit thick. Can you expand on what these prohibitive costs are and would they be solved by more or fewer jets, or more or less time deployed?

[glojo]

Hammond appeared to end the debate, saying the RN would “routinely embark 12 jets when deployed outside home waters with an ability to surge that number higher in periods of tension.”When outside of home waters I can understand how getting extra aircraft out to the ship would be a straight forward task, but what about the supporting ground crews. Would she always deploy with the maximum complement of handlers, engineers etc and if so is that over staffing the ship?

If they only deploy with the required numbers to both operate and service the twelve fixed wing aircraft then would the ship have to at the very least get within helicopter range of a friendly country to fly out the necessary support staff?

[Easy Street]

Surely no-one's surprised! The whole carrier/F35 programme is far more about politics (and I'm talking big boys' politics, not the inter-service sort) than it is about capability or sustainability or any kind of military consideration.

Politicians: Since we have a carrier, we have to put aircraft on it at every opportunity. What you do with them, frankly, couldn't care less, couldn't give a sht*t.

FAA: :ok:

RAF: :mad:

[orca]

Glojo,

Simple stuff for me.

12 jets would probably give you a 26 sortie day in peacetime. They would come crewed about 2:1 with a small overhead of scamps that were good for not much - so let's say 27 FW aircrew flying a 8/6/6/6 cycle which would take about 14 hours from first engine lit to last one stop cocked.

That's pretty much all your supervisory chain could cope with in peacetime so no real need to uplift anyone other than for hostilities at which point, yes, you might have to drag some extra bodies on from somewhere.

That is, of course, assuming that there were some more jets to uplift or 24 hour ops were called for.

Probably grossly out with my asumptions - which are actually slightly informed wild a##e guesses.

[Finnpog]

Orca,
Would that be 2 squadrons of FJ embarked? Sounds almost like the old Ark with Tooms and Buccs.
Add in some a couple of junglies, grey merlins, baggers // son of bagger and a Lynx Wildcat (of whichever colour) or two (and a WAH-64 now and again) - that would be an interesting range of capabilities.

Still a shame that we couldn't afford the "Cats & Flaps" and all that that would have added - but John Farley's comments of 'stopping and then landing' do make sense.

[hval]

Good morning Orca,


You are not thick. I suspect you might know what I am going to write. My comment was slightly tongue in cheek and was looking at things from a cost point of view. There are political reasons and strategic/ tactical reasons why a carrier might be used irrespective of cost. Here are a few indicators of cost items, irrespective of the number of aircraft on board the carrier.

A Crew compliment of 679 ships crew and an air element of up to 1,600 (when fully manned)
Designed to take 40 + aircraft (maximum of thirty-six F-35s and four helicopters)
Requirement to provide aerial refuelling, AEW, MPA. SAR aircraft guard and COD. Do these aircraft make up part of the twelve aircraft to be deployed, or are they in addition to twelve F35s?
Other vessels required to protect carrier. Let’s assume one Type 45 (crews compliment of 190) and one Astute class submarine (crews compliment of 98)
Also a requirement for RFA replenishment vessel/s. The MARS tankers have a crew of 63
Training costs for aircraft carrier usage are higher than for land based training
The life of the three vessels will be shortened by deployment
Increased crew costs for deployment. Don't need so many personnel if deploying on land
Those are significant support costs for twelve aircraft. It would be a lot cheaper to fly a whole bunch of aircraft to an airfield and deploy from there. I suspect this will be the first option for politicians. Politicians would also not enjoy the pride of the Navys' fleet getting damaged.

What have I missed? Oh yes, parking fees and a myriad other costs.

[lj101]

What have I missed

No diplomatic overflight clearance required: it's a massive issue which has prevented us (the RAF) from operating how we wish to. The lack of AAR assets is usually also 'a big issue' too.

It's far easier to get non strike aircraft permission to operate from foreign land. Afghanistan 2001, some ME countries allowed the tanker assets/nimrod to operate from their soil but the only FJ's we refuelled were off the carriers.

[Heathrow Harry]

I suspect the main use of the carriers will be to provide stand off bases here and there in low (marine) threat environments using whatever helicopters we have at the time - think Ocean or Argos but bigger

[hval]

lj101,

You are correct in what you write. This is where having an aircraft carrier is an advantage. There are many other situations where having an aircraft carrier would also be advantadgeous.

The High Heed Yuns may not wish to deploy the aircraft carrier as often as they should due to the additional operating costs. Availability of carrier protection vessels may also be an issue due to the lack of ships and boats. If the carrier is not deployed for sufficient training, due to a lack of funds, vessels or what eve,r then there may be increased risks.

[hulahoop7]

Hval, the point is it isn't going to just be the F35s. Lusty and Ocean are on their last legs (old age and cheap build). The QE class will be the home for the Commando helicopter force too. 90% of the time QE will be part of the Response Force Task Group essentially acting like a USS America. 90% of the time, that is all the UK needs. But it is also big enough to accommodate more F35 in an emergency, or become a strike carrier if the mission requires. Despite best efforts, the UK will end up with a flexible and well proportioned tool.

[hval]

Hulahoop,

Good, valid, sensible points. Unfortunately our politicians would appear to be on a cost saving drive that takes absolutely no notice of defence requirements. Cost is all. It would make more sense, to me, to actually operate the carriers to their optimum. What a waste to deploy with only twelve aircraft, whether it be for training or actual deployment for security reasons. You have all these personnel, support vessels, POL, food stuff etc being used, just for twelve aircraft. What is the up time going to be on the F-35? Certainly there will be some training and experience obtained from training with twelve aircraft, but not as much as with fourty aircraft.

[glojo]

Glojo,

Simple stuff for me.

12 jets would probably give you a 26 sortie day in peacetime. They would come crewed about 2:1 with a small overhead of scamps that were good for not much - so let's say 27 FW aircrew flying a 8/6/6/6 cycle which would take about 14 hours from first engine lit to last one stop cocked.

That's pretty much all your supervisory chain could cope with in peacetime so no real need to uplift anyone other than for hostilities at which point, yes, you might have to drag some extra bodies on from somewhere.

That is, of course, assuming that there were some more jets to uplift or 24 hour ops were called for.

Probably grossly out with my asumptions - which are actually slightly informed wild a##e guesses. Totally agree and agree about not wanting to embark a full compliment of maintainers for just 12 jets.

My memory is not what it was but I am fairly sure that the 22000 ton Centaur had just 12 fast jets (was it 892 Squadron Sea Vixens) and we coped with whatever was thrown at us be it Borneo or Aden.

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii527/glojoh/hmscentaur144c.jpg

22000 tons, 12 fast jets PLUS AEW along with COD and of course the numerous helicopter types. compared to the more modern Queen Elizabeth which will be 60k plus which we hear might now be deploying with the same 12 fast jets along with a few helicopters. The 12 F-35 will be a formidable force as long as the servicing does not keep them tucked up in bed for the great majority of their time.

We might scoff at 'just' embarking 12 F-35 but how many Tornado were operating out of the Italian base during this latest conflict with Libya and at what cost?

If we have the aircraft then let us get them as close to the target as safely as possible.

[Bismark]

Hval,

You seem to imply that it costs nothing to deploy an air capability to a foreign airfield. It costs millions! Also this deployed unit will require constant re-supply of everything from food to weapons - at great cost. And such land based deployments are not easily set up or dismantled. Once the political and military decision to deploy is made the impact is huge, a Cv deployment can be turned around in minutes - "hard to port coxswain!"

[hval]

Bismark,

If you get the impression that I imply that the deployment of aircraft costs nothing I do apologise. That is not what I meant for people to pick up on. The cost of deployment is significantly reduced compared to deploying a carrier fleet, even a carrier fleet as small as ours shall be.

I am actually pro carrier. I want one; no, in fact I want three carriers, plus all the necessary assets to protect them. That does not mean one Type 45 and one submarine per carrier. I want a real navy, with lots of ships, boats, aircraft and all the necessary funding that goes with it. I really do. Our political masters don't.

The point I am trying to make is that it would make more sense to deploy a carrier fleet with more than twelve airframes aboard. The ships and boats have a limited number of hours usage. Going to sea places stress and strain on all the bits and pieces that make up a fleet. The same amount of stress and strain is going to be involved whether there are twelve airframes or fourty airframes aboard (simplistic, not taking in to account increased weight, increased crew, increased use of lifts etc).

I therefore believe that we should be maximising the use of everything by deploying more than twelve airframes.

Our political masters might well decide that it is significantly cheaper to deploy aircraft to airfields than to send a carrier fleet on deployment. then there is also the need to take in to account that the carrier defensive vessels might be required elsewhere. We are short of ships and boats, with possibly/ probably insufficient to carry out the necessary tasks.

Then we have the reduced training. This impacts massively on safety. Carriers are very complex floaty things with a lot more risks than on a non floaty airfield.If there is a lack of training risks go up.

Hopefully I have clarified what I have been attempting to get across, obviously unsuccessfully.

EDITED TO ADD
Our Political Leaders are more than likely going to look at costs rather than what is sensible.

[hulahoop7]

I can't see a situation where the F35 number would get past 24. That's probably the maximum capacity where the junglies can remain on board. In most scenarios you are likely to want that RM capacity too.

And let's put this in context. The UK hasn't been able to put much more than 16 fixed wing aircraft to sea for over 30 years. I don't think CdG will carry much more than 24 - particularly rifrafs.
A task group built on those numbers, and with an LPD and 2 LSDs in company, will not lack capacity to deliver death and destruction for UK plc.

[hval]

Hulahoop,

Twenty four aircraft are better than twelve aircraft. Sixteen is better than twelve.

I can see where the QE II carriers may be used with LPD & LSD. I can also see situations where an aircraft carrier will be required as an aircraft carrier, without either of these assets types.

[Heathrow Harry]

hval wrote:-

"I am actually pro carrier. I want one; no, in fact I want three carriers, plus all the necessary assets to protect them. That does not mean one Type 45 and one submarine per carrier. I want a real navy, with lots of ships, boats, aircraft and all the necessary funding that goes with it. I really do. Our political masters don't."

I suspect our political masters can't see how the hell they are going to afford all this hardware and get re-elected. In every opinion poll, when asked to rate the importance of expenditure Defence gets about 5% of the vote behind schools, education, NHS, pensions, roads etc

[hval]

Heathrow Harry,

This is the problem, politicians don't care about the UK and the people of the UK, they only care about themselves and keeping their greedy snouts in the rich trough that feeds them.

[Heathrow Harry]

My point is that politicians respond to the messages they get from the electorate - there is no popular support for spending on defence in the UK right now

If any party was to stand on the basis that

" we're going to increase the military budget and increase taxes"or

"we're going to increase the military budget and cut the NHS/pensions/Education"

they'd be reduced to a couple of dozen seats

Sad but in general the good people of the UK don't feel threatened right now - certainly not by nuclear or conventional foreign forces - maybe by Al Qaeda

TBH this is how Churchill spent years in the wilderness - no-one wanted to listen to his warnings

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Twenty four aircraft are better than twelve aircraft. Sixteen is better than twelve.

Also any are better than none, which is what SDSR left us with. To refer to a post here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-86.html#post7434333):

From MOD news recently: Royal Navy unveils carrier training facility (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/RoyalNavyUnveilsCarrierTrainingFacility.htm)

To keep up with the state-of-the-art technology on board sailors and engineers will be trained in a £1m building at HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, which has been set out in the same way as an operations room on board the new carrier.

The personnel will be trained on the new mission system which links all the combat, communications and visual surveillance systems together by a fibre-optic network - these are usually separate on warships, allowing for a much more integrated way of working.

So Warfare Branch and Weapon Engineering types will be training for CVF, but not fixed wing pilots or deck crews?

I still think that the Government could make this into a success story, by leasing a few AV8Bs (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-50.html#post6592988) from the US (also worth considering other options and issues mentioned on this thread), and possibly either extending the life of HMS Illustrious post 2014, and/or speeding up the build and entry into service of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Additionally a radar equipped jet would help make up for the loss of ISTAR capability when Sea King ASaCs is retired before a replacement system is ready.

Things have changed since October 2010, not only the switch back to F35B for CVF and the need to prepare for a STOVL future, but also the world has changed - for the worse. The Harrier is the only type of aircraft (until F35B comes along) that can do STOVL shipborne operations, a capability I believe we need NOW. The US Marine Corps intend to carry on operating the AV8B into the next decade - and until 2025 or later if necessary.

Back on 17 December 2010 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-9.html#post6127943), vecvechookattack wrote:

We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.

Why is this not happening? Would embarking foreign Harriers be too embarrassing for the Government?

On this last note, I understand that RN deck personnel have been stateside where they have proved that they still are capable of working with fixed wing aircraft. Although it is worth considering the issue of whether this will still be the case in five or so years time if these skills are not practised?

Additionally the RN has the problem of building up the cadre of fixed wing Pilots - they cannot all go stateside, and there is a need for them to increase numbers, train new ones, and no become to separated from the rest of the Navy.

Because of these last two points, other topics (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131) discussed on the same thread are worth looking at.

[glojo]

Hi WE Branch,
As far as I am aware and I stand to be corrected, we are either having or going to have Royal navy fast jet pilots trained right from the get go over in the USA? Previously we have sent experienced pilots on detachment to the US Navy but now we might also be seeing pilot trainees learning their skill from US instructors and being taught the methods of the US?

Not only are there Dark Blue pilots over in America but I hear there might also be a few light blue who are desperate to do some real flying. Did i mention the French? Am I also correct to suggest there might a few military pilots on detachment with our French counterparts.

Can you PLEASE forget about the Harrier, it is dead, it is deceased, it is over, it has gone and my thoughts are it will NEVER be bought back into service for a 101 reasons none of which I am going to discuss as it would just add fuel to an extinguished fire. We are allegedly getting the 35B, the F-35B is allegedly the best aircraft for the task and we are allegedly getting that alleged best aircraft. :bored:;);)

I like the 35B, I think it has potential, I just do not think it was the best option :\:\

[Courtney Mil]

Very well said, Glojo. :ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

letter in today's Times suggesting we could have a cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's & 33 F-18 E/F operated by the RAF/RN for the same price as a big buy of the STOVL version

[Wrathmonk]

operated by the RAF/RN

Won't have been written by Cdr Ward or any other members of his think tank :E

cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's

or I suspect WEBF ;)

[Justanopinion]

Heathrow Harry letter in today's Times suggesting we could have a cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's & 33 F-18 E/F operated by the RAF/RN for the same price as a big buy of the STOVL version


How are we, the UK, going to provide AAR to F35A?

[althenick]

etter in today's Times suggesting we could have a cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's & 33 F-18 E/F operated by the RAF/RN for the same price as a big buy of the STOVL version

How would that work? If the RAF got F35A then what would the necessity be for them to go to sea? seems like a lot of grief to me

How many carriers cwould be converted for the money - assuming it is budget neutral?

Would it not be better just to have an F35a/b mix?

[glojo]

I thought the F-35A was for the US Air Force, the 'C' for the conventional US carriers and the 'B' for those that cannot afford this type of ship :\:\;)

[BEagle]

How are we, the UK, going to provide AAR to F35A?

A question which the RCAF must also be asking itself..... To equip the CC-150T with a boom would cost CAN$ zillions - and the F-35A cannot, it seems, be fitted with a probe...:\

One would have thought that the F-35C would have been a better RCAF option. Although it seems that they were very impressed by both the F-18E/F/G and particularly the Rafale during the Libyan war.

[Justanopinion]

One would have thought that the F-35C would have been a better RCAF option. Although it seems that they were very impressed by both the F-18E/F/G and particularly the Rafale during the Libyan war.

A mix of F18 E/F/G and F35 C would be a more useful mix for us. The Super Hornet and Growler will provide an impressive capability for some years to come.

[SpazSinbad]

'BEagle' said: "A question which the RCAF must also be asking itself..... To equip the CC-150T with a boom would cost CAN$ zillions - and the F-35A cannot, it seems, be fitted with a probe..."

Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012

Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012 | F-35 Canada (http://f-35.ca/2012/flying-the-f-35-canadian-defence-review-october-2012/)

"In the October 2012 issue of Canadian Defence Review, Joetey Attariwala interviews former RCAF CF-18 pilot Billie Flynn who is now a Lockheed Martin test pilot on the F-35."

Canadian F-35 Aerial Refuelling Considerations (excerpt from 'Flying the F-35')

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Flying-the-F-35-CDR-Oct-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)

"...According to Lockheed Martin, Canada has conducted a study to examine options for F-35 aerial refueling techniques. Lockheed Martin officials were not able to say what conclusions the Canadian study yielded.

Currently, the RCAF employs hose and drogue aerial refueling provided by CC-130H (T) and CC-150 aircraft. If the F-35A is adopted without any change, the Canadian way of aerial refueling would not be compatible. If one assumes Canada will retain its current aerial tanking technique, the options are to keep the current F-35A aerial refueling system and add the hose and drogue refueling piping.

The F-35A apparently has the space to accommodate this addition, however it would add weight to the aircraft, and would change the aircraft's center of gravity to some degree. We are unsure what implication the added weight and change in center of gravity would cause. Additionally, if the standard F-35A aerial refueling piping is retained, there would be maintenance required to keep that system functioning, even if it's not used.

If the standard F-35A aerial refueling piping is removed and only the hose and drogue piping installed, a change in the center of gravity would again need to be addressed and certified...."

Regardless of any of these options, it is unknown what costs would be associated to such modifications of Canadian jets...."

[Finnpog]

@ JAO - Particularly as the F-35B & C are to replace C&D model Hornets and the Harrier II+ and not the E/F/Gs IIRC.

[Justanopinion]

Finnpog @ JAO - Particularly as the F-35B & C are to replace C&D model Hornets and the Harrier II+ and not the E/F/Gs IIRC.


True, the USN will be using F35 with Super Hornet / Growler for a long while

[WhiteOvies]

If RCAF want to re-engineer the refueling system for the Dave A they will have to pay a shed load of money to do it, as would we if the RAF went down that route. The other option would be to fit a boom to CC-150 / Voyager and train up a cadre of boom operators. That too will be very costly!

With little spare money for either option in both Canada and the UK I just don't see it happening.

Better and cheaper to buy Dave C which has the large weapons bay, larger internal fuel load and a probe already.

Just bacause it's the carrier variant does not mean you need a carrier to go with it, as Ausses and Canadians have shown with F-18.

[TBM-Legend]

Bring back the F-105 . It had both types of refuelling options. Actually the F-35A is remarkably like a modern Thud.

[BEagle]

If the RAF version needs a tanker to get the aircraft near to where it needs to be, would it not make more economic sense to buy another one or two boats then?

The 'boat' may not always be able to get close enough to the conflict. Or might take too long to deploy....

?v=t0jgZKV4N_A

[orca]

I think the jets will go far enough now that we've gone for the C model.

Sorry, what's that you say?

We haven't?

Oh.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I thought that the switch from F35C to F35B was justified (in Parliament) on the grounds that we would get two operational carriers instead of one, would get the capability earlier, and would have less of an issue with respect to skills. But to my simple mind, doing so whilst still not having our own jets this decade falls short of having a coherent plan. We have a STOVL capable ship (and will throughout most of this decade), a STOVL future to prepare for, STOVL experienced pilots, and allies with STOVL aircraft. Is it just me that thinks a piece is missing from the jigsaw?

As far as I am aware and I stand to be corrected, we are either having or going to have Royal navy fast jet pilots trained right from the get go over in the USA? Previously we have sent experienced pilots on detachment to the US Navy but now we might also be seeing pilot trainees learning their skill from US instructors and being taught the methods of the US?

From what I have heard, building a cadre of pilots for F35B (including ramping up numbers) is proving to be a bit of an issue for the RN. I recently heard a couple of interesting rumours from people in the know, but to avoid another circular argument (and to protect my anonymity) I will not repeat them. Neither mentioned Harrier per se, but one was carrier related, and the other WAFU (maintaining skills/training a fixed wing cadre for the future/UK based stuff) related.

It would help of course there was a jet in RN hands (other than the two NFSF(FW) Hawks) for fixed wing pilots to fly when not stateside - and it would make sense (to me, at least) for it to be capable of flying from HM Ships Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth.

SDSR may have killed Harrier in UK hands, but the aircraft continues to by flown by other nations. The US Marine Corps are prepared to continue operating the AV8B until 2025 or beyond. If only we could lease a few, as I suggested here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-50.html#post6592988)....

Previously USMC Harriers (or those belonging to the Navies of Italy or Spain) have been embarked about Illustrious or Ark Royal to maintain the skills of carrier personnel. I understand RN deck crews have demonstrated they still have the skills - but will this still be the case in x years time if they have no practice?

If I wanted to prepare to run a marathon, I would not start by cutting one of my legs off. But then again we are talking about politicians...:ugh:

Finally, there is the capability gap issue. Everyone seems to agree that the world has changed a lot since SDSR, but our defence and security policy has not caught up. Not that having thrown away the tools for the job discourages our politicians from speaking loudly and writing cheques that others cannot cash - such as this talk of increasing the UK military presence in the Gulf (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9656299/Britain-could-build-up-its-military-presence-in-the-Gulf-to-counter-Iran-threat.html).

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Naturally. when we discuss CVF we think of future F35 operations, which once again are going to be of a STOVL nature, since we have gone back to the B variant.

However, CVF will also carry Merlin for ASW and ISTAR, both for protection of the carrier and as a contribution to the task groups capabilities. Remember the Invincible class CVS was originally intended as a "through deck cruiser" to operate a large squadron of ASW Sea Kings.

Regrettably the SDSR axed several of the larger RFAs that could embark four or so Merlins. Therefore this will be an important capability that CVF provides, particularly with a smaller number of frigates post SDSR and potentially no Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

In the first post of this thread, I asked what needed to be done to get things moving. One of the replies was to sort MASC (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm) out.

MASC was also going to be important. The name change from FOAEW (Future Organic AEW) reflected the changing role from simply AEW and fighter control to wider maritime and air surveillance and control tasks.

In the interim, when the Sea King AEW2 was upgraded to Mk7 standard, the new term ASACS indicated a wider role. It has been used as an ISTAR asset both at sea to support maritime security operations (and has flow from larger RFAs as well as the CVS), and against land targets, as well as the more traditional carrier based role.

MASC has now become Crowsnest (a great nautical name) - which this article (http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co.uk/2012/08/giving-eyes-to-aircraft-carriers.html) discusses:

A lot of things have changed, however, and not for the best. MASC has become Crowsnest, and it is now pretty much certain that the new AEW solution will be Merlin HM2-based, with the helicopter being fitted with the Cerberus system, migrating from the Sea Kings, or with the new Lockheed Martin Vigilance podded radar system. A marked backwards step from the earlier Navy hopes of procuring around 10 dedicate AEW platforms: under the new scenario, the already hard-worked fleet of Merlin helicopters, while going down from 42 (4 in storage) to 30, would be loaded with yet another role, in addition to ASW and Maritime Security in the Gulf.

Even worse, there is a very real risk of having to face an AEW gap of several years, with the Sea King Mk7 bowing out in 2016, with the replacement only available possibly as far away as 2021 or 2022.

I think most of us share these concerns.

The article then discusses the two Merlin based proposals for Crowsnest. If nothing else, it how appears that there is a dedicated staff and some funding.

[vascodegama]

I guess that if AAR is not needed for ship based AC then the USN just wasted money by having it and all those FA18 s etc that we refuelled over the years were just doing it for fun. I also guess that the emergency reinforcement of GR3s from ASI to Hermes in 1982 was another pointless exercise!

Another example of the need for the capability is the option to refuel (from the emergency tanker) when the deck is not available.

[Finningley Boy]

During the reign of the Audacious Class Carriers, Ark Royal and Eagle, all the Tactical fixed-wing stuff relied on Tanking, both Sea Vixen and Scimitar could Buddy Buddy refuel and the mark 1 Buccaneers relied on a retained Flight of Scimitars to keep them going over s sufficient range from the carrier. I understand the reason being so that the carrier could stand off as far away as possible, especially if the Scimitar/Buccaneer was carrying a Free Fall/ Toss Nuclear Explosive Device. This process lost out in an argument with the R.A.F. who maintained even once the TSR2/F111 future had been abandoned that they could still reach anywhere in the Globe!:suspect:

Personally, I think it was a poor day for U.K. Defence Policy, if we purport today as then to have a Global air strike function we're best off not trying to force an argument between the F.A.A. and the R.A.F. as to who should have sole responsibility, the carrier has its moments and sometimes its more convenient to deploy a land-based squadron, quickly.

FB:)

[Courtney Mil]

WEBFoot. If you insist on keeping this ridiculous line of reasoning going, please stop using the "I know something you don't know" line. Seen it twice from you recently.

I recently heard a couple of interesting rumours from people in the know, but to avoid another circular argument (and to protect my anonymity) I will not repeat them

Either state your case or keep it to yourself. If you cannot provide evidence to support your rather tired argument, then just leave it.

[Rhymenoceros]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic:
From what I have heard, building a cadre of pilots for F35B (including ramping up numbers) is proving to be a bit of an issue for the RN.


From what I have heard, there are the best part of a dozen F18 qualified RN FW aviators, with another group set to join them in the coming 12 months. The first RN pilot has also started on the F35 OCU at Eglin AFB. With those flying at Yeovilton, Culdrose, Valley etc also in the mix in the future, I think the RN FW cadre is looking pretty healthy.....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But we cannot send everyone Stateside until F35B is ready and landing on a RN deck can we?

In any case, that does not deal with the issue of skills amongst future CVF personnel. We need some jets on deck.

[david parry]

Think these days have long gone ,and will never be repeated,anytime soon on the new carrier ;) QUOTE GP ..On descending out of cloud,this was the mighty Eagle and i was expected to land on her. When we landed ,i picked my face out of the instruments in front. From that day on,i have always considered the fully worked up aircrew/deck party of a ROYAL NAVY carrier as the most professional military operations that i have ever witnessed, in 36 years RAF service :D

[glojo]

From what I have heard, there are the best part of a dozen F18 qualified RN FW aviators, with another group set to join them in the coming 12 months. The first RN pilot has also started on the F35 OCU at Eglin AFB. With those flying at Yeovilton, Culdrose, Valley etc also in the mix in the future, I think the RN FW cadre is looking pretty healthy.....Excellent point

I stand to be corrected but I understand that some Royal Navy pilots might be taking a step back in time and be doing ALL their training in the USA. By that I mean learning to fly an aircraft and then going on to honing the required skills for military flying. We have an EXCELLENT thread that talks about this but the aircraft had a radial engine and were mostly bi-planes. :O:D

Not only are our officers learning their trade in a country that struggles to speak English, we are also lucky enough to have British pilots flying from the Charles De Gaulle. I just hope our pilots remember to celebrate Trafalgar Day (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/RoyalNavyCommemoratesTrafalgarDay.htm) :ok:

We are playing big boy games with the budget of a school boy's tuck money, putting a pint of oil into an empty fifty gallon oil drum is never going to impress anyone.

Do we seriously believe our country will ever have two operational carriers with sufficient aircraft to have both ships fully combat ready?

We now have a carrier sailing the high seas without a single fixed wing aircraft and that speaks volumes about our attitude toward carrier capability (a badge has been stuck on the funnel of this ship which is supposed to change its role)

When and if our first new carrier puts to sea it will probably not have any type of AEW cover and when this does finally arrive it will be a rotor wing flying machine with the limitations of any helicopter and contrary to what their lordshiops are saying, its beyond horizon sea skimming detection capability must surely be very limited when compared with a 'high flyer'?

We are allegedly putting to sea a ship with second choice fixed wing aircraft, second choice AEW capability and absolutely no way of embarking any type of tanking aircraft and then we will no doubt ask why are we bothering?

[ORAC]

Why is it so important to have AAR for the ship-based F-35 then ? The F-35B has a combat radius of 450nm on internal fuel. Assume the carrier has to stand-off shore at 200nm to avoid land based anti-ship missiles, such as the C-802 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802#C-803), then the effective range against a land based target will be 250nm.

That severely limits the system capability against any land-locked country or large country such as Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan - to name only the last 3 in which we have conducted operations.

And that ignores the advantages in both time and numbers in being able to to airborne alert as opposed to GCAS etc.

[eaglemmoomin]

Are you sure? Thats why we are spending billions of pounds on big transatlantic capable air tankers for the RAF. I mean AAR or proper air tankers?

The F35 may or may not get buddy tanks refuelling later down the road anyway.

Can I ask why people get so upset about us using helicopter based AEW. If I recall the Merlin is more powerful and can stay up longer than the SeaKing so the range should be better and the ceiling is what 12,000 ft to 15,000ft is'nt it. I don't see why the hysteria about we must have fixed wing AEW.

Chopper based AEW seems to be good enough for fleet defence and for country based stuff we have what 7 odd AWACS?

[ORAC]

Don't think of tankers just as range extenders, think of them as force multipliers.

If I have a CAP 1 hour from base with 1 hour on task and a 1 hour turn, then 8 aircraft are required to maintain a pair on station. But if I have a tanker allowing the TOT to be extended to 3 hours, then I only need 4, halving the required force or doubling the number on CAP.

The proximity of the carrier means aircraft can be rapidly rearmed once fired out, but even if flown from a remote base the tankers provide a massive boost in capability. Which is why the carrier based assets off the coast of Pakistan for Afghanistan Ops were supported by Oman based tankers and why the RAF in Bahrain supported USN FJ flying up from the Indian Ocean in GW1.

[ORAC]

Ref AEW.

The higher you go the further the radar horizon. As a minimum I'd want the AEW at FL250, ideally FL350+.

The speed of a helo severely limits it's use/flexibility. It can't be used to accompany a CAMAO and can't be rapidly moved to face a new threat axis. it's also very vulnerable as it can't retrograde out of range if targeted.

it's better than nothing, but nobody would use rotary if fixed wing was an option.

[LowObservable]

Once again - there is no fundamental reason why fitting the A with the refuelling probe should be expensive, since the hardware and the great majority of the clearance work can be ported directly from the B and C. (The B's up-and-away characteristics will not be much different from the A because the aerodynamic differences are small.)

It certainly should cost less than boom tankers. On the other hand, the US may well put a vast price tag on the conversion, or assign it to the Block 12 configuration, while suggesting brightly that the partners might want to junk all those Froggy Airbus things and buy some shiny new KC-46As. Coalition interoperability, don't you know.

After all, it's not as if JSFs will be flyable at all in an operation that the US doesn't support, or that they will necessarily be flyable after the owner sends regrets to an invitation from Washington to join it in a war.

[MSOCS]

LO

Cynic....

[Engines]

LO and others,

I think that Rand were tasked to do a study into USAF tanker configuration options - worth looking for.

I believe the conclusion was that it would be effective to swap smaller tactical aircraft over to probe and drogue and leave boom refuelling for large aircraft, but I am very prepared to be proved wrong.

What I do know is that replacing the A's boom receptacle with a retractable probe (as per B and C) would save a lot of weight (around 200 pounds plus) and give back a good amount of fuel (over 400 pounds). That's good numbers for a tactical fighter bomber.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[JSFfan]

Canada already has a requirement for the probe and drogue in their F-35A, I haven't checked on the other partners or Japan and Israel

[Heathrow Harry]

Multipoint Aerial Refueling: A Review and Assessment | RAND (http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB152.html)

RAND study downloadable from here :ok:

[glojo]

We are now getting the F-35B and as far as the Royal Navy is concerned it will not have a capability of refueling this aircraft. If it has to take off and investigate any contact then it has a limited time in the air before the requirement to return to the ship and refuel. This will be the time the carrier will be vulnerable with a limited amount of aircraft and no means of in-flight refueling.

Going back to the original alleged concept of these carriers, I am led to believe a steam option was considered for fitting catapults and this would have been cheaper than the newer EMALS system?? (question)

I keep asking myself where the boilers for these catapults would be located, what would they be used for and how much space they would occupy.

Would these boilers be like an electric kettle where they could be switched on and solely used whenever the ship was at flying stations or would they take time to bring onto line and build up the required amount of steam pressure? I am assuming we are talking about a boiler capable of operating systems requiring a pressure in excess of 300Ib per square inch and capable of launching multiple heavy aircraft over a very short period which would indicate the need of an exceedingly large kettle which in turn would surely take SEVERAL hours to build up the required pressure to go on lineand start launching multiple aircraft??

Once the required pressure is built up then what would happen to the boiler, where would it dump the excess steam or would the ship have other items of machinery capable of using this excess steam? If the answer is yes then would this boiler be used to run machinary when not at flying stations? If the answer is yes, then surely the boiler\boilers would have to have the capability of running machinary, plus launching aircraft and would this mean HUGE boilers capable of pwering the ships engines and if so why have huge gas turbines to power the ship when the boilers are already installed? If this boiler is shut down on completion of flying stations then would that in itself take hours to accomplish and do we then have an extremely large area of 'dead space'?

I ask this because from what I understand the ship has no requirement for any large boiler system and is powered by gas turbines along with other diesel powered items, all the equipment is not designed for any type of steam power? (question)

I was under the impression that the EMALS system was all self contained and had its own diesel powered generators that produced the copious buckets loads of volts that are required to launch and current Naval fixed wing aircraft?

Is there any conventional aircraft carrier in commission anywhere in the World that is not steam powered and has steam powered catapults?

I ask this as it looks like our new carriers were designed from the outset to be powered by gas turbines so what method was PLANNED to launch fixed wing fast jets??

Please read this post as me asking questions as I just feel we are being told any old yarn that will hopefully baffle us with so called science and hopefully the Boffin will put my mind at ease and explain all my silly queries.

[Not_a_boffin]

1. Current plans do not appear to have a carrier-borne AAR asset for F35B, just as was case for SHAR/GR9. However, F35B combat radius is greater than SHAR/GR7 and the PnD fit (compare with SHAR) less likely to incur operational restrictions.

2. AFAIK, the initial consideration of "steam" cats was limited to digging out the old BS6 drawings and comparing them to the available space. The team later got limited access to US C13 cat info to update weight and space provision, but these are subject to ITAR issues (as is EMALS for that matter). I don't know whether specific boiler fits were actually looked at. I'm pretty sure costing was unlikely to have been detailed enough to say whether cheaper than EMALS or not. Likely to have been cheaper only in an initial sense in any case. TL support for steam systems that would be unique in the fleet outside the SSN/SSBN community and requiring a significant number of below decks bodies to support would not have been cheap. Nor would finding them accommodation in the ship.

3. The type of boiler was probably not looked at in detail (see above). I'd bet the ranch no-one ever considered using steam turbines for propulsion. The system would have used steam reservoirs on 2 deck (similar to the US systems) charged off a dieso-fired set of boilers. That also provides a level of persistence / capacitance. Without doing the maths, you're looking at a boiler of a few tens of tons, not a drama in a ship that size. As with all steam systems, in operation you have to keep them warm, so it's unilkely that the plant would ever be shut down completely.

4. The designs have NEVER considered any use of propulsion steam turbine. The early concepts used 4 off WR21 (thank God THAT never got any further)driving electric motors , before they got a bit bigger and ended up as a GT/diesel combo for the generating plant.

5. No - EMALS is not self-contained wrt power generation. It interfaces with the CVN electrical distribution system, via a power controller. This may have been one of the issues with the UK fit. We will distribute shipwide at 11kVA (standard offshore practice). The US distribution system is at a lower kVA rating.

6. Three navies operate steam cats - Brazil, France and the US. All use steam powered carriers.

7. The CVF has always been planned to operate as GT (or primarily GT) powered ship. CTOL operations have always been seen as a "fallback" option in case STOVL failed. It was only when F35B started going seriously wrong that CTOL ops came to the fore. The reasons are complex and include political and technical factors.

On the political side, STOVL was always attractive to the RN as it was what they had become used to. It is also relatively cheap in terms of people and if the RN has failed in the CVF programme, it is in continually being unprepared to pay for and defend the f/w FAA until it was too late. Once FCBA had been captured and became JCA, the RAF liked STOVL because (they thought) it meant they could "replace" the Harrier GR capability and thus maintain squadron badges and aircrew numbers, without going to sea regularly, as would be required if they were the augment to a CTOL CAG. The pollies liked it because Rolls Royce kept a foothold in US military engine supply.

The technical side is a bit more straightforward. The timeline for gestation of the ship design has unfortunately spanned a period where everybody was CERTAIN that steam aboard ships is a bad thing (probably rightly) because it's difficult, hard to maintain, has safety issues and eats manpower. At the same time, the "alternative" EM technology was not sufficiently mature to include in the design without an eye-watering risk allocation (cost!). It is only comparatively recently that the EM technology has been considered low enough risk to be affordable. Unfortunately, by that time the build of the ship has progressed, making fitting it more expensive - although I certainly don't believe the £2Bn figure quoted. If we were at the same stage now as we were in 2002, then I have no doubt whatsoever that a more detailed CTOL option would have been prepared as part of the adaptable design and that it might even have won out in a cost-benefit analysis. However, we're not and it didn't - for whatever reason.

[LowObservable]

One aside to N-a-B's (as usual) informative post: I would not be surprised if the Chinese stay with STOBAR until they have a nuke carrier, at which point they will jump into EMALS.

It was unfortunate timing for CVF. However, the decision to go STOVL at the outset was also influenced by the high degree of optimism around JSF in general, and STOVL in particular, in the formative 2000-04 years. Had the F-35B come in with the performance forecast early in the program it would have been a more robust capability, no SRVL necessary and possibly enough payload for beneficial buddy tanking.

[glojo]

As usual an excellent post which answers lots of questions and on the Centaur they would flash up the senior boiler room whenever the ship went to flying stations although it could be suggested that this extra oommphh also helped to get a few extra miles per hour. Are you convinced a boiler of that weight would suffice? (polite question)

As you rightly point out ALL conventional carriers have steam catapults but these are fed off of either huge diesel fired boilers or nuclear felled units.

My comment about EMALS being self contained was based on what you had previously discussed but it could well be me misunderstanding what you were saying. Having large generators low down in the ship makes far, far mores sense and something I had always thought would have been the better option.

I agree that it looks like the government was ALWAYS leaning toward a STOVL aircraft which always meant no decent AWAC, no refelling capability, no COD and a reliance on a submarine escort for a decent ASW shield??

Could it be that there was no real understanding of carrier capability or were those with the knowledge never consulted?

I accept we can say we have no money and cannot afford this capital ship but that is a separate argument. If we want carriers then should we have premiership players and not something out of the Conference league. It is a half hearted pot mess that has a short shelf life!! What will replace this latest STOVL aircraft?

Can this ship ever operate without shore based air support? (polite question)

[JSFfan]

from what I have seen posted about the place, the forces always wanted STOVL, it was a knee-jerk political "uk strong" that swapped to EMALS, till the realisation that it doesn't fit the UK CONOPS and the forces got their way, the rest is just face saving

[glojo]

I am sure 'the forces' :uhoh:;) might have wanted STOVL but would any First Sea Lord want to put his fleet into an area where there is no shore based AEW support? I think the answer to that is obvious and are we saying the First Sea Lord (https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3211) opted for this type of carrier, especially as we have such a small surface fleet. The type 45 is an excellent ship, but I would respectfully suggest the detection of sea skimming missiles is not its forte? (question)

[Lowe Flieger]

UK Carrier Enabled Power Projection fits a familiar profile:

1. The government fund's to Premier Inn levels and the military is tasked with delivering Claridge's standard.

2. Somewhere between the thought and the deed, the cost of the equipment rises to Claridge's plus anyway.

3. Everyone then sweats their danglies off to paper over the cracks and make it work the best they can.

Was it ever any different? Or am I just being a typical cynical Brit?

LF

[eaglemmoomin]

Glojo possibly another STOVL aircraft/UAV. I don't see why not? You have the US Marines, Italy, Spain (just about), Thailand (not that they ever use them) and India that operate STOVL right now (though to be fair India are going STOBAR for their replacement carrier and god knows what for the two follow ons). The South Koreans, Japanese and Aussies all have/are building large amphib LHA/LHD flat decks. Turkey are also in the design stage of a large amphib LHA/LHD. Crucially three of those countries are part of the JSF consortia buys may occur in the same way that an A buy may happen for us when Typhoon starts to go out of service in the 2030s to meet our obligation to buy a 148 odd JSF.

The purchase numbers for the B and C are I believe currently roughly the same and initially the USMC were hoping to not buy any C at all and just operate their B's off of the CVN's. But the potential market for the B seems stronger to me, based on all of the naval willy waving going on. The F18/F16 have been going since what the mid 70's in various forms so since the F35 is the replacement for them I think the B's shelf life should be pretty decent.

[eaglemmoomin]

Glojo also if you haven't seen them do a search for

R.N. AIRCRAFT CARRIER STUDIES BY J.F.P. EDDISON, RCNC.

and

THE DESIGN OF HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH AND HMS PRINCE OF WALES BY S. T. D. KNIGHT

THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER ALLIANCE, UK

in google then have a read.

[glojo]

I think you might be a little harsh and whilst we might not have had the largest Navy, during the fast fixed wing jet era our Fleet Air Arm was probably the best in the World with carriers that had cutting edge technology that the USA copied.

We could certainly launch aircraft quicker than our NATO ally and our landing technology set the standard for carrier borne operations but yes we operated on a shoe string and worked those ships but as you say, was it ever any different.

I am NOT saying we should have carriers but I am saying if we have them then we should do the job properly and man them with our very best fast jet pilots and who cares what we call the service that mans those ships. The best ships with the best pilots operating the most suitable aircraft and note I am NOT suggesting the most expensive aircraft :ok::)

Boffin is the expert and cost wise I cannot help but wonder how big a saving there would be if we had never bothered with the F35 but gone with the F18 stable and once this latest aircraft had proved itself, then and only then we could have considered our options. The carrier will always be upgradeable to take the latest offering but with STOVL we have reached the end of the road and this aircraft will allegedly be the last of its kind?? (will it)

[Not_a_boffin]

Can this ship ever operate without shore based air support?

Short answer is that of course it can. Slightly longer answer is that it will depend on the mission and how many cabs we eventually get.

Carrier capability does not necessarily equal replicating what the USN had in the eighties and nineties. They do not have the same capability now.

Carrier capability is defining the set of missions you want to do, projecting what that threat is likely to look like and building your airgroup around it.

Simple defensive AEW can be achieved with a helo solution, it just tends to mean that you may need to allocate more cabs to DCA by adopting CAP vice deck alert. Where you do lose out is in the ability to control major strikes (the reason why FOAEW changed to MASC) and that is almost entirely speed / FL dependent. Of course an E2 solution would be better than a r/w solution, but that does not make the r/w solution useless, nor indeed the ship vulnerable. It's not as if the old Gannet plus APS20 did strike control either.

Last time I looked, the RN have rarely fielded an organic AAR solution other than Scimitar to support the Bucc S1 and Buccs with buddy tanks on the old Ark, principally for recovery serials. Was the Ark any less of a carrier capability?

For ASW, I can't recall an organic f/w ASW capability once Sea King HAS1 hit the decks in large numbers. Merlin HM2 is at least as capable and can be embarked on the QEC. Would I like a deeper field organic MPA? Hell yes, but we appear not to have had one since circa 1966, so adding one now will be one hell of an ask. COD is a slightly different issue, but actually what does a C2 really bring to the party that an RFA can't?

I think people are forgetting that we have never had a USN CVW capability and are comparing QEC (as a large and expensive ship) against it. This leads to some unflattering comparisons which do not necessarily reveal the whole truth. Some things need re-iterating :

1. QEC is not expensive because of it's size. It is expensive because MoD can't cost independently and because some non-RN senior officers have spent the best part of a decade suggesting that the ship was too big and therefore ought to be delayed or cancelled. This allowed the pollies to dither and this costs money - real money.

2. The ship will be big enough to operate a meaningful number of FJ and helicopters, which will allow it to play credibly in most scenarios - unlike the constrained animal that was CVS.

3. The ships will last fifty or so years. In that time we can buy more jets if required and even modify the ships to operate whatever comes after F35.

I think what I'm trying to say is that QEC will be a significantly more capable beast than CVS and quite possibly CdeG. Would we like E2D, COD, all the bells and whistles? Oh yes, but we can't afford them. What we can afford will actually be relatively more capable than any carrier we've had before and I include Eagle & Ark in that.

That is far from Conference league. Comparison with a CVN is the wrong comparison. It needs to be measured against the requirement it was designed against (circa 2000), which is still largely valid.

[glojo]

Hi Eaglemmoomin

Glojo possibly another STOVL aircraft/UAV. I don't see why not? You have the US Marines, Italy, Spain (just about), Thailand (not that they ever use them) and India that operate STOVL right now (though to be fair India are going STOBAR for their replacement carrier and god knows what for the two follow ons). The South Koreans, Japanese and Aussies all have/are building large amphib LHA/LHD flat decks. Turkey are also in the design stage of a large amphib LHA/LHD. Crucially three of those countries are part of the JSF consortia buys may occur in the same way that an A buy may happen for us when Typhoon starts to go out of service in the 2030s to meet our obligation to buy a 148 odd JSF.


Good points but the US Marines are a military force unlike anything we can compare. Yes they have STOVL but they also have conventional fast jets and will usually if not ALWAYS operate with a US carrier battle group and if not then they will have USAF AWAC's plus tankers.

Are the Italians and Spain still intending to purchase the F-35?

I believe India is in a right mess with its ex Russian STOBAR carrier and the new build carrier is falling further and further behind schedule but when it does eventually become operational, it will operate multi-role fast jets that will be capable of buddy buddy refuelling, something we will not be capable of doing.

I am led to believe the Russians are converting their carrier to CATOBAR plus the Chinese will also be eventually going down that route.

The Japanese are now a defence force and perhaps might not deploy their force in the same way as our government does so the LHA option might be the most suitable ship but...

We are building huge carriers (huge for our country) and yet they will only ever deploy with a limited number of aircraft.

Question NOT a statement
Would it not have been better for us to have built the latest all singing, all dancing LHA type vessel with the latest F-35B's, attack helicopters, support helicopters and then have the military hardware along with the landing craft. Instead we have these 60,000 ton carriers with their ski jumps and only carrying a nominal number of aircraft.

Thank You N-A-B for the usual VERY constructive reply :ok:

[Not_a_boffin]

We are building huge carriers (huge for our country) and yet they will only ever deploy with a limited number of aircraft.


Assumptions change. Your assertion is based on an assumption.

Would it not have been better for us to have built the latest all singing, all dancing LHA type vessel with the latest F-35B's, attack helicopters, support helicopters and then have the military hardware along with the landing craft.

There was (and is) no requirement for that capability (we have LPD, LPH & LSDA). It also leaves "someone else" doing your AD.

There was and is a requirement to provide air defence, both over Fleet and overland in addition to providing Air to mud support.

[eaglemmoomin]

Italy definately are though they cut the number to 90 odd and (at the Italian airforces urging (I think) cut the number of F35B eg the one the Italian Navy want for their carriers). Spain, right now it's difficult to say either way as they've just mothballed a carrier leaving them with a single LHD the intention was to purchase F35B for them (but I don't know if F35B would have been compatible with the mothballed carrier anyway) but who knows, it depends on when their Harriers start dropping I guess.

Japan have two 'helicopter destroyers' already and added an additional two more 20,000 ton vessels so maybe maybe not, I just think it's interesting that the two existing ones are 8000 tons in displacement smaller.

I think the other thing to remember is that the UK has 7 AWACS aircraft and will have 12 A330 based tankers we have three or four MARS tankers on the way and then a solid stores variant of MARS to come as well along with Crowsnest (which at this rate will be late as ASAC goes out of service in 2016 and work has not started on the replacement (apart from studies and trials done by Thales/Westlands and Lockheed) combine that with T26 and T45 and the Astutes taken as a whole I think we will have a pretty useful force. Certainly in our own back yard anyway.

SDSR would have left us with a part time carrier force anyway with the ability to surge RAF jets onto the single carrier being a lot more remote with a carrier unavailable for large portions of the year and then aircraft 'owned' by another service with pilots requiring a greater level of training burden and time to be able to land and takeoff.

I actually think accepting some range and weight tradeoff that what we've ended up with isn't a worse capability at all in actual practical terms.

[glojo]

Hi Not a Boffin,
Sorry for causing any confusion but the suggestion for an all singing LHA would be as a replacement for our older vessels and they would carry the exact same complement of 35's as the QEC carrier.

The 'assumption' I am allegedly guilty of is not mine but that of our illustrious Minister for Defence who was speaking at the Chief of the Air Staff's Air Power Conference at the Royal United Services Institute. He states the carriers will deploy with an air wing of between 8 - 12 aircraft.

I would NEVER compare our carrier capability with that of the United States Navy but I am guilty of comparing these carriers with our old 1960's ships that did have air to air, air to ground, AWAC, COD, tanking capibilty and of course anti submarine helicopter capability. Yes I may have rose tinted glasses but during their era were they the World's most advanced carriers with cutting edge technology? The only nuclear carrier was the USS Enterprise and although she carried an air force on her decks, we could launch aircraft far quicker and get them back as safe as that larger ship. I TOTALLY accept we never deployed with anything like a battle group and quite clearly we never will be able to. (what we never had, we will never miss)

[eaglemmoomin]

But the F35 is a true swing role strike fighter so it can do both air to air and air to ground and correct me if I'm wrong but it's a dynamic shift that can be done on the fly as it were switching from one mode to the other.

Merlin HM2 has an ASW role and we will have an AEW capability at some point so the only things I see missing are AAR and COD. But we will have AAR from the voyyager force and if you absolutely had to do some form of COD whats wrong with Chinook combined with the MARS vessels or bunging somethink out the back of an A400M or something, I'm sure I remember reading something about that being done by the RN/RAF in the past.

It's numbers of kit available/in service date that I think personally is the problem not so much the capability.

[glojo]

Totally agree about the F35 and its capability but even the trusty old Sea Vixen could act as a tanking aircraft which is something the 35 is not capable of.

My point was that a 20,000+ ton carrier was capable of carrying all those aircraft type and obviously we cannot compare the 60's technology to the capablities of this amazing aircraft. I just feel it is a poor choice and will need shore based air support

Would Crowsnest offer better early detection of sea skimming aircraft compared to a fixed wing aircraft and I suppose I am thinking E2

How many times have we heard promises of an all singing military upgrade that is about to be introduced and when do we expect Crowsnest?

[Justanopinion]

The lack of buddy buddy refuelling for F35B is a slight red herring as precisely because it is VSTOL is the reason it has less requirement for this capability. The USN (as we used to on a conventional carrier) primarily use the tanker for recoveries to catch the bolters who may need a squirt of fuel. It can be used to slightly extend mission range but realistically for a division only in the order of a couple of thousand pounds each. Useful but never going to replace land based AAR ( USN Afghanistan current day and after 911).

Not being an engineer I also fail to see how complicated it is to generate this capability on the F35. The buddy systems I have used are not hugely complex and can be bolted on to any jet

[Not_a_boffin]

Sorry for causing any confusion but the suggestion for an all singing LHA would be as a replacement for our older vessels and they would carry the exact same complement of 35's as the QEC carrier.

QEC will be capable of operating 30+ f/w and a good number of helos. Probably more once she is in service and folk work out how to manage the deck. You won't get that on an LHA. More to the point, the requirement QEC fills is that for CVF (ie provide f/w AD, strike and r/w ASW).

The 'assumption' I am allegedly guilty of is not mine but that of our illustrious Minister for Defence who was speaking at the Chief of the Air Staff's Air Power Conference at the Royal United Services Institute. He states the carriers will deploy with an air wing of between 8 - 12 aircraft.

He is making an assumption, which is already different from that voiced only a few months previously that there would only be 6 F35 on QEC deployed for a couple of weeks a year and different again from those made during the noughties. The planning assumptions can and do change over time. Contrary to the belief of some, they are not tablets of stone.

The point is that you can buy additional a/c, you can deploy them differently, you can change the personnel mix - it is just a question of changing funding assumptions. What you can't do, is retroactively change the capacity of a major capital asset with a life of 50 years because you built it too small in the first place. What you also shouldn't do is allow one service to buy equipment that will prevent it being interoperable with the others, should the need arise.....

[glojo]

Wise words as usual and I totally accept that the LHA would not be capable of handling that amount of aircraft and it would be foolhardy to say otherwise.

Hopefully my posts are being read as me asking questions as opposed to my making statements.

[hulahoop7]

... and as I have said many times here, Ocean is also due for the chop and the junglies will need a home. QE will be more USS America rather than Ford.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The point is that you can buy additional a/c, you can deploy them differently, you can change the personnel mix - it is just a question of changing funding assumptions. What you can't do, is retroactively change the capacity of a major capital asset with a life of 50 years because you built it too small in the first place. What you also shouldn't do is allow one service to buy equipment that will prevent it being interoperable with the others, should the need arise.....

All the more reason for having a larger ship, with more space on deck and in the hangar.

[WhiteOvies]

Excelent discussion, my one input would be regarding the COD requirement, and I do not automatically mean C-2.

Supporting aircraft at sea organically is difficult in this world of contractor support and just in time logisitics. You need to be able to front load critical spares into your RFA before the TG sails. What we discovered on Ark's last deployment was that the contract and aircraft fleet in the UK could not support having certain assets 'stuck' at sea in the RFA or in the hangar.

This has always been the case of course and you can't have a logisitics mentality of "at least one of everything, just in case". It does drive a requirement though to be able to transport spares from the shore to the sea, with a FW COD giving a speedier and longer range capability than a RW asset.

Putting 202 Flt Lynx onto the deck gave added COD flexibility and allowed the Merlins to concentrate on other things (like ASW when you haven't got a sub escort). The extra lift of the Merlin was useful on occassions and Chinook broadens that considerably.

So if you can spare a RW asset that can lift what you haven't got, can afford the time to wait and move closer inshore, there is no shortage of COD options for QEC. Of course V-22 has the best of both but I can't see the UK buying any of those any time soon. :(

[ORAC]

Which non-catapult/cable carrier capable UAV? Towards Scavenger (http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co.uk/2012/07/towards-scavenger.html)

Drones to get Aircraft Carrier Test (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/364075/Drones-to-get-aircraft-carrier-test)

The Royal Navy is to start trialling unmanned drones launched from aircraft carriers, Defence Minister Philip Dunne says. Drones are only used by the RAF in Afghanistan at present but Mr Dunne said they will be tested on aircraft carriers from next year. Initially the drones will be tested for surveillance use by the navy, such as searching for pirates off the coast of Somalia.

Mr Dunne said: "We are about to embark on a concept of use demonstration trial to see whether for surveillance purposes a maritime system could be deployed in the future. It is not presently anything past a demonstration phase. I think it is perhaps not a surprise that we are thinking of some trialling, some capability for future use.".............

Mr Dunne's comments raise the possibility that the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers may have drones operating off their decks before any manned aircraft. This is because the first carrier is due to come into service in 2019 before the new joint strike fighters become available. There have been rumours the Government was thinking of introducing unmanned drones at sea. But it presents a number of difficulties such as landing the aircraft on a moving deck.

Mr Dunne said that drones would become more advanced, but added the Government had no intention of developing systems that did not require some form of human control. He said the Government had no intention of using drones for surveillance use outside of the military, such as keeping tabs on illegal fishing. The minister added: "There is a system that will be going through a concept demonstration next year. The uses of that will be for the Royal Navy to decide if they decide to procure a system in due course."......

[Not_a_boffin]

Supporting aircraft at sea organically is difficult in this world of contractor support and just in time logisitics. You need to be able to front load critical spares into your RFA before the TG sails. What we discovered on Ark's last deployment was that the contract and aircraft fleet in the UK could not support having certain assets 'stuck' at sea in the RFA or in the hangar.


Interesting. Was that a MIOS or SKIOS issue? Or Harrier? Suggests that someone hadn't framed the contract (or the spares provision under the contract) to account for squadrons at sea. Not that we'll ever be able to have "one of everything just in case" again - but does highlight the importance of knowing how you're going to operate and thinking it through if you're going down the CLS path.

[glojo]

Hi ORAC,
I was listening to a Parliamentary Select Committee meeting that raised the issue of carrier borne UAV's. A retired Air vice Marshall was advocating these aircrafct as the future but the Navy was saying to launch a UAV with anything like a decent payload will require catapult launch and arrestor wire recovery. Wed have neither.

The Air Marshall was adamant we can use drones for surveillance and i am sure he is correct but can we launch a UAV with enough fuel and the required payload from a ship and also recover it?

I have seen plenty of small UAV's launched from ships but these latest aircraft are huge and getting bigger. I have always maintained that this choice of carrier is and was bonkers, we cannot launch these larger UAV's and even with what we have, we will also not be able to recover them unless we use a crash net.

The RAF are adamant we can, they are adamanat we can cope without MPA, the Navy are saying we are overstretched and are in what appears to be total disagreement, they want MPA, they also wanted the conventional carrier.

My thoughts are that the Navy stars that are in disagreement will be replaced with folks that say the words that want to be heard.

[Lowe Flieger]

I believe that the possibility of using on Type 45 and 26 was also mooted, so we are probably talking either small aircraft in the ScanEagle class, or possibly rotary. I very much doubt anything meaty is being contemplated just yet.

However, I think it is right that we should be trialling the concept. Any early capability would likely be limited, but there is a lot of development work going on on UAV's of all sorts, so who knows what capabilities might become available during the service life of the new ships?

LF

[glojo]

Hi LF,
I totally agree and we are indeed trialling a number of differing types and are also using our RFA's to launch these aircraft.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/October/PublishingImages/HSN_LaunchedUAV_ND1011.jpg

But if we want to look to the future and maybe consider what will replace manned aircraft or perhaps have an option then is this the way forward and if so did we indeed make the right choices when we opted for the carriers we are now building and should we have resisted this last U turn? http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/fullsize/Defense/UAVs/X-47B_catapult_launch-NorthropGrumman.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Back to the present: was there really any chance of the RN getting the Hawkeye and Grayhound even if CVF had gone ahead as CTOL?

As for the preference for STOVL supposedly expressed by Their Lordships, I think we ought to remember the problem of the art of the achievable. I still think we need to have embarked fixed wing aircraft before Queen Elizabeth/Prince Of Wales/F35B arrive in service - even if it is only a few borrowed AV8Bs attached to NFSF(FW). If ETPS can safely and economically operate small numbers of foreign jets (such as the Alpha Jet or Grippen) then why cannot NFSF(FW) operate say a couple of borrowed AV8Bs to give us a jet for UK based RN fixed wing jocks to fly, to embark on deck, and to contribute to trials and development of landing aids and other equipment? Would this not be an easier and simpler thing to do that the proposal I made here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-82.html#post6893208) (over a few posts/pages)?


Or embark foreign ones, talking of which back on 17 December 2010 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-9.html#post6127943), vecvechookattack wrote:

We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.

Why is this not happening? Would embarking foreign Harriers be too embarrassing for the Government? Yet the need for training future carrier personnel is acknowledged by the commisioning of facilities like this (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/RoyalNavyUnveilsNewCarrierEngineeringDevelopmentFacility.htm ) - so why not provide some live training at sea for deck crews at al?

[eaglemmoomin]

Due to our skintness

I think it is cheaper to embed the pilots and selected deck crew on US and French carriers (given that we already run exchanges and already have a 50 year defence pact with France) then have them flow into instructor spots in those two navies so by the time we get to 2018 we've had several people aboard large carriers and Marine core gators. Rather than doing a work up from scratch.

Given that the F35 is a supersonic combat jet and far bigger than the harrier I suspect that a lot of the handling procedures and other elements are going to have to be cribbed off the US and French who have experience with large carriers whereas ours went in 1976 or so. Surely it's better to get the experience from experienced users who have been continously putting the theory into practice so there's a trained experienced cadre that had direct access to US/French experts while they relearnt all the skills that we used to have.

What's the point in continually refining harrier tactics et all when the replacement jet is a multi-role supersonic strike aircraft with an electronics fit more in keeping with the kit thats on US and French combat jets as opposed to the GR harrier?

We have 36 fixed wing pilots in the FAA from memory and I think we currently have 18 on exhange with more to go out. I also remember reading about a couple of meterlogical officers having been seconded to a CVN also

[WE Branch Fanatic]

so by the time we get to 2018 we've had several people aboard

Not quite the same as having a few jets embarked ourselves and everyone in the carrier getting experience.

Rather than doing a work up from scratch.

It will be from scratch for most of the personnel involved. Why do you think so many people have expressed safety concerns (such as those mentioned here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8799280/Royal-Navy-sackings-will-lose-aircraft-carriers-skills-forever.html))?

The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.

and..

With the loss of the aircraft carriers Ark Royal and Illustrious there is little employment for highly specialised deck crew that safely fly and recover aircraft.

The senior officer's concerns that have been passed on to the head of the Navy, are that with the "skills wastage and inability to ramp up level of skills" the new carriers cannot be brought in "in the timescale envisaged".

"I believe it would not be possible given the reduction in the Navy and difficulty of retraining these skills that they can be brought in time scales envisaged.

"The experienced people who we would put on ships are all leaving because they don't have work. This situation is considerably worrying."

Surely basics are basics - Harrier or F35B? Things like handling live aircraft on a moving deck at sea, making sure that the ship is heading in the right direction and speed to launch or recover aircraft, and lots of other whole ship aspects.

To my mind, we also need to think of crises that may occur this decade. The current mantra seems to be cut back, make do, ignore risks, get defeated. Yet despite the cuts, our politicians seemed determined to make noises with respect to possible crises involving Syria or Iran.

[JSFfan]

hulahoop7
Lusty and Ocean are on their last legs (old age and cheap build). The QE class will be the home for the Commando helicopter force too. 90% of the time QE will be part of the Response Force Task Group essentially acting like a USS America. 90% of the time, that is all the UK needs. But it is also big enough to accommodate more F35 in an emergency, or become a strike carrier if the mission requires. Despite best efforts, the UK will end up with a flexible and well proportioned tool

Yours is about the most sensible post I've seen on here so far. I've suggested before if people go to SLD and read the f-35 marine interviews, it will give an idea to where UK is heading IMHO

[ColdCollation]

(In response to WE Branch Fanatic) ...because while they make those noises, they continue to give the great unwashed/uncaring the impression that we still 'can' rather than letting them know the true state we're in.

[Heathrow Harry]

maybe the Chinese will sell/lease us their training carrier eventually

[orca]

I wouldn't worry about skill fade on the bridge. We had the Invincible class for 30 years, and they never managed to get the wind right once.

Also - so long as these ratings that are hell bent on creating fatalities on deck only kill themselves then we should be good. ;)