Future Carrier (Including Costs) [Archive] - Page 8

Magic Mushroom

6th Jul 2008, 15:10

I wasn't so much suggesting the STOVL train had departed, more that there are pros and cons to both F-35B and F-35C.

The former would enable the CVF air wing to be rapidly and significantly reinforced by RAF sqns without the need to maintain highly perishable cat/trap skills. STOVL also allows greater flexibility in operating from austere land bases, and from a wider variety of RN and coalition surface ships. Who knows, the replacement for Ocean (if there is one) may even be designed with a ski jump and without a dirty great CIWS to ensure fixed wing cannot fly STO!!

The CV option meanwhile is clearly the more capable aircraft in terms of range/payload. People who argue for CV so that E-2 can be procured really need to wake up and smell the coffee. The money is just not there for such a MASC solution and the SKASaC sensor already out performs the E-2 sensors in many respects; those advantages will remain even over the E-2D. Yes, a rotary MASC suffers from many limitations but there are very few scenarios where theatre C2 will not be be supplied by land based assets such as E-3 and Wedgetail. A Merlin ASaC would offer a pragmatic balance between ensuring CVF has a useful C2 capability, and allowing cash to be spent on other essential capabilities such as CVF C2 and J6.

In the very unlikely event that F-35B and C are unavailable, I would suggest that the FA-18E/F offers a better solution to Rafale due to its sensor/weapons mix. Sea Typhoon is a complete non-starter imho.

DOG,

Apologies, I stand corrected!

Regards,
MM

LowObservable

6th Jul 2008, 16:34

I can't imagine the Treasury taking kindly to an abrupt and fairly serious change to the plans, since industry and MoD have sworn on their grannies' graves that there will be no surprises this time, we've really got this one sussed guv.

And there is no really good CV aircraft out there. The Rafale is French and eccentric, with all that implies. The F-35C is a Buccaneer with supersonic dash, and the Rhino can't get out of its own way (and moreover will be out of production by the time the CVFs are operational). It gets harder as time goes on to see any alternative to the F-35B, so everyone had better pray that it works.

In short, that's the problem - the longer that everyone remains infatuated with JSF, the fewer and worse the alternatives get.

hulahoop7

6th Jul 2008, 22:55

The RN already covers the cost of running 2 carriers within its budget - so its not extra money being spent. The type 45s have been found to run on half the fuel of the type 42s they replace, so although the CVFs might be 3 times the size of the Vinis they will probably cost about the same to drive as the current old CVS'.

They take 1500 men rather than 1200 on the CVS, but the RN will be replacing 6 T42's at over 300 men/women a ship with 6 45s at 190. So less overall.

They need an airgroup, but are we saying that the harriers should not be replaced - after STOVL has demonstrated real utility in Stan? Also add on the fact that UK plc will earn more from F35 through its workshare than it will ever pay out buying them.

So it must be about the £4bn capital cost? But the RN has sacrificed ships to pay for them. Remember it used to be 12 Type 45s, and now it is 6. The escort fleet is significantly reduced on 1998.

Many people think its worth the sacrifice. The 45s might be good at protecting a task group, but they don't give you the power to drive the military strategy of that group. They allow the UK to make the big calls.

So the RN have paid for them in capital savings, and running costs. So why can't we afford them?

A certain £20bn contract comes to mind at this point.

Mr Grim

7th Jul 2008, 05:35

I don't think that most people have an issue with F35 - it is with F35B. The C can carry more/bigger bombs further and/or stay on task longer (in stealth mode and bomb truck mode). The stealth delivery of 2 x 1000lbers is fine, just so long as the bad guys haven't hardened their assets too much!

I'm not sure the last 2 letters of STOVL have proved their utility on current ops.

orca

8th Jul 2008, 09:27

A quick search on google gets you onto wikipedia which quotes its source as the JSF media briefing packs, which although obviously unclass are quite enlightening about aircraft range.

They quote range for the A,B, C models as 1200nm, 900nm and 1400nm.

These must obviously be taken as very rough figures. But when considering austere ops etc one must be mindful of the fact that if the C can fly 500nm further than the B it isn't a bad assumption that it's combat radius is going to be somewhere iro 250nm more. (All agree? Good)

How many austere basing options in the world are there without decent bases within 250nm? Does an extra 250nm from Mum negate the need to step ashore anyway? How long would it take for a squadron to launch from the boat, recover to a strip, set-up, re-fuel, re-arm, mend the planes and then start fighting again? What asset would take the kit/ engineers etc?

My personal opinion is that the 'flexibility' given by STOVL is at best disingenuously sold, at worst a complete red herring. I'm sure someone far cleverer than i shall disagree.

hulahoop7

8th Jul 2008, 10:08

I think it's mostly about the training. With STOVL the whole of JFH, or JFDave can either be flexibly deployed ashore or to the CVF, without any particularly difficult retraining.

If the UK went CTOL, those pilots would be spending a LOT of time keeping carrier current. I think a super power luxury.

Range is obviously relative, and C version is exceptional. B doesn't look to shabby when compared to some contemporary aircraft. e.g. twice that of a harrier.

If the UK wants to drop big bombs at range from a land base, there is always a conformal Phoon?

orca

8th Jul 2008, 13:06

Imagine, just imagine that Dave B were performance limited. i.e. the engine geeks were getting about as much from the donk as the airframe geeks had made their structure weigh. That would mean that every deck landing would be a one off, and the pilot would then taxy to the chocks on vapour. So to do five or so would require the same amount of turn rounds etc on deck (i.e. deployed/ detached)

Imagine, just imagine, if Dave C were able to pitch up to the boat with enough gas for four touch-and-goes followed by the real deal/ RTB. It could even do it unsupported, and be back at Lossie before the rubber marks cooled.

If the above were true Dave B would be ridiculously hard to actually derive training benefit from, whereas Dave C could fit a carrier qual or two into just about any mission you care to mention.

Of course, the VSTOL performance of JSF B has never been in doubt, and anyway, aeroplanes tend to get lighter as kit tends to be taken away during the platform's development....err, no wait.

Backwards PLT

8th Jul 2008, 15:34

mr fish

8th Jul 2008, 15:58

a bit out of touch here, is AEW going to be deployed onboard ?,some earlier posters mention the possibility of a converted merlin.

blandy1

8th Jul 2008, 17:54

What about a split buy of Bs for the carrier ops and a few land based squadrons plus a few squadrons of Cs for long range land based attack. In the event that the CVs are ever converted to Cat & Trap the Cs would then obviously be available for use on them.

Bismark

8th Jul 2008, 21:25

So let me get this right - the justification for STOVL F35 is that conventional carrier landings are hard and require constant training whereas VLs on carriers are much easier and don't? LOL - as the yoof say. Can't wait to banter the harrrier mates about that!

Does it matter? I thought F35 (whatever variant) will be auto land - as demo'd by the VAAC on INVINCIBLE a couple of years ago and the F18 today.

Re range - what likely targets require such addl range that make the B so unsuitable?

Re choice, it seems from Janes that more nations are beginning to choose the B variant - UK, USMC, USAF, Canada, Japan, Italy.....plenty to operate off CVF.

Re Mariner - not sure the USN will operate this off a CV, in any event there is no reason not to use the angled deck to avoid the ramp for UAV launches -plenty of deck run available.

Re costs of CVF....pales into insignificance when the costs of Typhoon (incl deployment costs) are taken into account....and Typhoon doesn't do the diplomacy bit in the political arena before hot ops.

orca

8th Jul 2008, 22:13

Don't forget, old chap, that 'range' is a bit more complex than it appears. Aircraft with long 'range' are also able to go to short 'range' targets but can loiter a bit while the CJs smack the SAM sites, they can retrograde when the Flankers launch, and they can hit the target later. They can also 'gate' on the run out when it's all gone pear-shaped. Options denied to those with smaller 'range', who on paper should have had the same effect. Those chaps have to scurry home to Mum and tell someone else that they have to do it all again tomorrow.

Given the same FOB, and the same FAC, the same distance away, an aircraft with a greater 'range' will actually give a greater persistence than his shorter 'range' competitor.

Oh, and let's not forget, they're probably going home to Mum. So the 'i was a little careless with the blower due to a minor SA-15/ Fulcrum combo issue, can i come home early please?' Will probably be met with a 'No, everyone's in the same boat' type answer. (The ones we all love). However, given greater 'range' not only might the aircraft in question not need any favours - most of the boys in the stack might agree to slip a minute or two in return for a Smiths post de-brief.

If anyone ever offered me greater range, more bombs or a f@#king fan, i know what i'd go for.

Modern Elmo

9th Jul 2008, 02:47

Re range - what likely targets require such addl range that make the B so unsuitable?

The kind of targets that have other service branches that can hit back at foes at sea.

The carriers can stand off at additional range from the target, that's the idea.

Bismark

9th Jul 2008, 06:46

The kind of targets that have other service branches that can hit back at foes at sea.

The carriers can stand off at additional range from the target, that's the idea.

Yes but you have got to find the Carrier in the first instance...it is not a fixed GPS coordinate like an airfield, viewable on Google Earth. I am not aware of many nations that have the ability to locate targets at sea, let alone attack them. Whereas a fixed base ashore, with a long runway, remains a (relatively) easy target - look at the FP needed for Bagram, Kandahar, Basra, Baghdad etc yet according to the news they are all regularly mortared.

And you can't coerce much with Typhoon from the UK homebase, whereas 12 miles offshore in international waters is a good indication of intent!

SSSETOWTF

9th Jul 2008, 07:41

Orca,

I don't think it's as black and white as you clearly think it is. The US Marines have wanted and needed the capability to operate strike aircraft from austere bases near the frontline over and over again - from island hopping across the Pacific in WWII, to Vietnam, operating off roads in Desert Storm, Bagram and FARP'ing from helicopter sites near Al Kut in OIF. Even the UK has needed / used the capability including the tin strip in the Falklands and Kandahar etc etc. Having long range is good in one sense, but that means it takes even longer to react to an urgent call for fires. Forward basing has a time and a place.

JSF has been designed from the outset to have a very small logistics footprint when deployed - it's a Key User Requirement in the contract, defined by the number of C-17 loads/aircraft. So people have thought about this and we've defined a requirement based (presumably) on a logistics footprint that we can support.

You're also thinking in a very legacy mindset if you think JSF will be holding off waiting for CJ's etc. This is a very stealthy aircraft indeed. You can operate it like an F-117 or B2 and pretty much go where you want, when you want. You're going to want to avoid using afterburner like the plague as the last thing a stealthy aircraft wants to do on a dark night is light the sky up with a huge flame (or highlight yourself on IRST) so there won't be much 'gating' from Flankers either.

If you care to read anything about the huge effort that has gone into developing unified control laws for the F-35B, you'll discover that it is indeed incredibly simple to hover. There's no nozzle lever, and the jet will do everything for you. Autoland, for a conventional F-35C, relies entirely on JPALS working, and as far as I know it's slipped further right than our required IOC. And you're still going to have to train for a reversionary approach in the event that your primary recovery aid goes down. So at some point you'll need to find a training aircraft to teach all our Hawk pilots how to land on boats etc (unless you're advocating doing your first carrier landing in an F-35?). I am also led to believe that the design for the first carrier is pretty much frozen and it's going to be a STOVL boat unless we pay a huge amount of cash, so you could say the ship's already sailed....

You're obviously quite right that aircraft get heavier over their lives, but engines also get bigger and more efficient. The original Harrier engine from the 60's couldn't lift a II+, but over the years the engine has been improved and you can now hover a heavy radar bird in the Persian Gulf with a couple of LGBs and fuel tanks. Similarly the F136 engine is already more powerful than the F135 and I'd bet my house that the boys at GE/P&W/RR can figure out how to get more thrust from their engines over the life of the F-35B. So I don't see your point there either.

I really don't particularly mind which variant of F-35 the UK chooses to buy as they're both fantastic. But I'm assuming that some clever people will have done some exhaustive studies into which model is better for our particular requirements. If the decision they've come to is that the -B is the one, do you really think the best thing to do is to sit around whining that it hasn't got xxx of fuel, when it has more than enough to fulfil its intended roles? You may well be able to think of a particular scenario where the -C has an advantage over the -B, but if it's not a scenario that the UK has a requirement to be able to fulfil then it's a bit irrelevant.

Finally, Mr Grim - it sounds like your assuming that we're going to attack an enemy who's just clever enough to harden his assets to withstand a 1000lb bomb, but just stupid enough not to harden them to withstand a 2000lb. If it's a hard target, then you're probably looking at Storm Shadow from the GR4 or Typhoon boys. But for the other 99% of targets out there, a 1000lb will usually do just fine - check out the stats from OIF.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Pontius Navigator

9th Jul 2008, 07:47

Yes but you have got to find the Carrier in the first instance.

I am not aware of many nations that have the ability to locate targets at sea, let alone attack them.

I am amazed. Absolutely amazed. I suggest you look into global ASuW capabilities. Once you have located a CV group it is a relatively easy matter to continue to track them.

The potential for a diesel sub to infiltrate the defencive zone was proven by the Chinese quite recently.

The threat will push the CV further out which then increases the demand on AAR or more bomb trucks.

Finally, the CV is not the only HVA. Hit the supply train.

orca

9th Jul 2008, 08:34

SSSETOWTF

Thank you for your reply. All more than fair, and obviously very well informed, although i don't necessarily agree with you. (As is my wont, and i fully accept that you don't have to agree with me etc etc)

I would put forward the fact that there will be scenarios, stealthy or not when you will require loiter time for special mission aircraft or UAVs, or even your own wingmen, to do their job. I think that the LO geeks will work wonders, but you might still need to run away or defeat a weapon kinematically, so fuel is good. (There's every chance that threat nations also have geeks, they might be up to no good.) I completely accept that B or C will be awesome. I think that the USMC are getting a fantastic aeroplane, but they have the luxury in certain circumstances, of having a USN along with them. My personal opinion is that the UK needs to be a little less stove-piped. Particularly as this aeroplane might well end up replacing GR4, so a common OS asset across the board is worth considering.

I think deploying to a FOB using C-17 sounds great, but 'stepping ashore' from CVF doesn't. (C-17 loads and ASW Merlin loads being somewhat different.) You probably know better than i how much kit the UK is fragged for and whether or not the C-17 would fly with stuff left at Lossie/ pinched from another unit.

I accept fully that all the VAAC work etc has made the job of hovering easy. (Let's be honest hovering a harrier 2 is achieved daily by a number of people, so i assume it doesn't rank as the hardest task in the world) But i remain to be convinced that you'll get more than one DL per hop. This might not represent a training burden, it might present a logistical burden.

I think your most telling point is that the boat has indeed sailed, I cannot see UK buying anything other than STOVL, (in fact i'd bet my house on the fact!)but i don't subscribe to the view that this should stop us debating the issue. (If you, like i, have nothing better to do of an evening!)

Fly safely.

Schiller

9th Jul 2008, 09:30

I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate the problems of deck landing, and the continuing practice thereof.

In the old days, we just did a lot of MADDLs (Miror Assisted Dummy Deck Landings), followed by a few DLPs (Deck Landing Practice, ie touch-and-gos) strapped to a Bucc/Vixen, and that was pretty much it. Returning to the deck after a lay-off one merely did a few MADDLs in the couple of days before re-embarking, and the ship usually gave us a few DLPs before recovering us at the end of the first few sorties.
I think we also can assume

1. That the F35 will be a lot more forgiving than a Bucc/Vixen in the circuit.
2. That it will offer greater assistance in the way of automatics.
3. That the simulator will be able to replace the MADDL sorties, and be more realistic as well.

Incidentally, will the carriers be fitted with some form of sim, does anyone know?

SammySu

9th Jul 2008, 10:24

So let me get this right - the justification for STOVL F35 is that conventional carrier landings are hard and require constant training whereas VLs on carriers are much easier and don't? LOL - as the yoof say. Can't wait to banter the harrrier mates about that!

VLs aren't easy (but not that hard either), however if you can VL at base or in the field then you can VL onto the ship. Many Harrier pilot's first ever sighting of the CVS was as they decel'd alongside to VL on their initial embarkation.

I'm not sure the last 2 letters of STOVL have proved their utility on current ops.

The original austere runway at KAF was very demanding on tyres and undercarriage - the ability to VL when yours gets trashed on take-off has proved very handy indeed on several occasions.

Regardless of the fun to be had debating the pros and cons of the CVF project and whether the B or the C is the better jet (You can't beat flexibility but the range and payload would be nice etc etc) lets just celebrate the fact that we are getting two purpose designed, state of the art carriers and a fleet of fifth generation fighters to put on them.
You just can't predict what we will need over the next 40 years but any variant of Dave and the ability to deploy them independantly worldwide is a sound, flexible insurance policy.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

9th Jul 2008, 10:38

Pontius N. That is a good point about SSKs and hitting the "supply train". Hit the essential AOR, AO or, by then, MARS and operational endurance immediately becomes limited. That means that the support ships will need to stay inside the Screen. They will still be vulnerable to air attack and underwater attack. To counter the former, there is an intention of 6 T45 DDs. For the latter, by then, we will have no more than 13 T23 FFs (the Future Surface Combatant isn't discussed very much, is it). Assuming no further "savings", that's 19 ships of which not much more than 13 could be expected to be in Fleet Time. Say, 4 DDs for AD and 4 FFs for ASW (on the thin side), that's over half the operational fleet tied to one operation.

A very simplistic back-of-a-fag-packet assessment; but it does suggest that DD/FF force will be below that needed for our core Maritime commitments. The danger in the CVFs is that further sacrifices in DD/FF numbers may be needed in order to fund them. The alternatives, without additional and much needed increase in the Defence Budget, are to reduce the core tasks at significant risk or rely on NATO (lets not think about EU!) cover for our capability gaps. The other assumption, of course, is that any Carrier operations undertaken would be part of a US Group and sit under (and over) their umbrella.

Although the CVFs are central to current Maritime (and Joint) Doctrine, as per BR1806, one has to wonder at what overall National risk; unless there is a real increase in the Defence Budget.

not_so_sis

9th Jul 2008, 10:47

It is absolutely imperative that the United Kingdom has new aircraft carriers to show its power against rising countries and old enemies. Although economy issues look a little daunting, they will deteriorate far worse with a fall in military superiority. The usual association with carriers and the cold war are as relevant as they ever where, although the use of carriers have been in other efforts continuously it is therefore ignorant to dismiss their usefulness, and as for the cold war, Russia is considered the most urgent threat to the United Kingdoms security with only al Qaeda and Iranian nuclear developments in front. We are already in the 2nd cold war and although this has not widely been presented in the media as people pick up on this it will become more evident, with Russian intelligence agents crawling through systems more now than ever. If you see such threats as irrelevant or non existent then surely you would find typhoons and other aspects as useless as well. If these threats do arise through any circumstances this extortionate price will redeem itself, although in my opinion the decision is a no brainer by simply looking at current political climates, risks in this world are prominent and sadly there is no wallet friendly way around that. There is more to these decisions than meets the eye as well.

not_so_SIS

Tourist

9th Jul 2008, 10:51

The Carrier carries Merlin, the worlds premier ASW killer. The number of T23's is largly irrelevant.

Not_a_boffin

9th Jul 2008, 11:27

"The Carrier carries Merlin, the worlds premier ASW killer. The number of T23's is largly irrelevant."

Borrocks. Detect, classify, localise, prosecute. Merlin is fantastic at the later ones of these. But without the earlier stages our underwtaer friends are already in (or close to) the TDZ.

ATP1C, ATP28 and the Extacs were and are still relevant.....

Tourist

9th Jul 2008, 13:26

Never went on a Casex where the Frigates were anything other than an annoyance when it came to finding and killing the boats. And tht was when we were using Seakings!
The only better platform than the Merlin is another boat.

Not_a_boffin

9th Jul 2008, 14:08

Inner screen maybe, but then again most Casexs end in some scandiwegian, boxhead or cloggie popping smoke far too close for comfort.

The future at the minute is minimal MPA, vastly reduced number of boats and six cabs on the ship. If I were ASWC, I'd want a wide area asset out there (even if she did ensonify everything for miles)

Backwards PLT

9th Jul 2008, 14:24

I really don't particularly mind which variant of F-35 the UK chooses to buy as they're both fantastic. But I'm assuming that some clever people will have done some exhaustive studies into which model is better for our particular requirements. If the decision they've come to is that the -B is the one, do you really think the best thing to do is to sit around whining that it hasn't got xxx of fuel, when it has more than enough to fulfil its intended roles?

I think the decision was more based on cost than capability - fitting cats (and all the support stuff) is pretty expensive and quite risky as they were looking at some fancy electromag thing, iirc.

You may well be able to think of a particular scenario where the -C has an advantage over the -B, but if it's not a scenario that the UK has a requirement to be able to fulfil then it's a bit irrelevant

I can think of a scenario - pretty much every mission in current theatres. Harriers are desperately short on endurance (persistence if you must). As are many others such as F16. I would suggest that being able to support troops on the ground for much longer should be a key requirement. Don't know if it is, though.

I just think that it is a pity that we will be in a second class of F35 users. Although it will look cool at airshows!

hulahoop7

9th Jul 2008, 16:06

You are right that persistence is the requirement of the moment, and is the big downside of the B. But lets be positive...

1. The B will probably be able to get much closer to the action than the other types because of its reduced reliance on big smooth tarmac. Thereby cutting reaction times, as well as transit fuel burned.

2. For the current types of ops stealth probably isn't such a big deal. The B will be able to add a couple of tanks, which should make a big difference to that 450 combat radius.

3. 450 isn't so shabby, but more is obviously very attractive.

4. I hear that there is some pressure in Australia for them to split a small part of their buy and get some B's for the LHDs. If we give Canada a similar nudge in that direction the CVF could alternate hosting a 'commonwealth squadron' on deployments. That would take pressure off our own units, keep the carriers topped up and be a great pr exercise. I'm sure they'd also make a great contribution. The B version makes this kind of exercise very easy.

Modern Elmo

9th Jul 2008, 22:14

I think the decision was more based on cost than capability - fitting cats (and all the support stuff) is pretty expensive and quite risky as they were looking at some fancy electromag thing, iirc.

In other words, econo-model aircraft carriers. Can't afford all the add-ons and options.

Question: do you contemplate operating these two Invincibles-with-elephantitis in the Persian Gulf?

Bismark

10th Jul 2008, 06:57

Pontious N and Others,

How many C17 loads does it take to get the POL to your DOBs - oh yes, it comes by road, from a maritime hub having travelled by sea - as does about 80% of the support for deployed land ops. Best you have CVF and its merry FF/DD/SM/embarked air to protect the supply routes, or you have no operation. And while they are there why not fly from them?

Madbob

10th Jul 2008, 08:12

Modern Elmo

Do you or anyone else know if our "econo-model" carriers will be either equipped with, or able to handle, Alize, C2/Greyhound-type COD ac?

In the old days the RN used Gannets but obiously the "thru deck cruiser" versions that the RN now call call carriers have lacked this ability. IMHO it would seem a major oversight if this capability wasn't built-in to the new ones....

MB

althenick

10th Jul 2008, 08:16

You mean Falklands 2? Since the envisaged airgroups dwarf the current committed CAS aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan which enjoy HNS.

It hasn't really gone away Bill :ugh:

Argentina's military threat raises fears over Falklands - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/2271140/Argentina%27s-military-threat-raises-fears-over-Falklands.html)

Not_a_boffin

10th Jul 2008, 08:34

COD, AEW (aka MASC) all put to one side in the hope that "something will come along....." In other words, do the difficult bit first (get the ships funded) and then worry about the TAG and it's components. Don't even have so much as a plane-guard option included as yet......

Modern Elmo

12th Jul 2008, 01:38

Magic Mushroom

12th Jul 2008, 04:05

How many C17 loads does it take to get the POL to your DOBs - oh yes, it comes by road, from a maritime hub having travelled by sea - as does about 80% of the support for deployed land ops. Best you have CVF and its merry FF/DD/SM/embarked air to protect the supply routes, or you have no operation. And while they are there why not fly from them?

Grow up Bismark.

Individuals such as yourself fall right into the hands of the divide and rule brigade in the Treasury; it is them who are the real enemy. So may I suggest you and others who argue black and white in favour of land or carrier air power acknowledge that they are each complimentary with specific strengths and weaknesses.

Carriers are very flexible assets that do not need host nation support (although they still require overflight rights as in the case of Afghanistan) directly. In addition, they are as visible as required; they can discrete at times whilst still being able to send a powerful diplomatic message when poised or en route (eg the southerly transit of the Task Force in 1982). Carriers are mobile and therefore generally more difficult to target than land bases. Moreover, that mobility allows them to deny threats (eg MANPADS) or move away from poor weather.

However, carriers are not especially difficult to locate for any nation with even a modest AEW or ASuW capability. That advantage is being further eroded as civilian access to maritime radar surveillance and oceanographic satellites and software (unless the carrier remains stationary and avoids creating a wake) increases. Moreover, when attacked, they are far more vulnerable to total loss of capability than a land base. Likewise, they are far more susceptible to being shut down by accidents such as deck incidents, fire and collision (eg USS Oriskany, USS Forrestal and USS Enterprise). In terms of flight ops, carriers are unable to support the full range of air power and invariably rely upon land based combat support assets such as AWACS, SIGINT, JSTARS, AAR etc. This is true even of USN CVNs. Meanwhile, carriers simply cannot replicate the rate of ops offered by land bases with aircraft often compromised in range, payload and sortie regeneration. Finally, carrier air potentially takes a long time to arrive in theatre if not pre deployed, and entails a considerable support infrastructure of escorts and logistics ships.

In comparison, land bases clearly require HNS for basing (although in reality this is rarely a major factor) and potentially overflight rights. They are fixed locations susceptible to poor weather and attack by enemy air, missile, MANPADS and other forms of insurgent/SF attack (eg rockets). In short, they can become tethered goats and can evolve into significant focus for insurgent and diplomatic discontent. Nevertheless, when attacked, they are very difficult to close down for extended periods and nor are they as vulnerable to accidents as carriers.

Also on the positive side, land bases can generally support the full range of air power assets, will normally have good infrastructure in place and can become operational very rapidly from the order to go (eg E-3D ops over Afghanistan within 36 hrs of the order to deploy in 2001 and F-15C ops over Saudi in 1990 within a similar timescale). This infrastructure can also be used for other components, either as a base in its own right (eg Basra) or as a hub and spoke Air Point of Departure (APOD – eg Al Udeid). The aircraft supported are rarely as constrained as carrier assets and can normally maintain a high rate of ops for extended periods.

In short, they are pros and cons for both land based and maritime air and each is complimentary. Find me a weakness for one, and I’ll find a similar issue with the other.

The sooner people like Bismark stop willy waving and present a united front for the greater Joint good, the better for us, and the worse for our friends in the Treasury.

Kind regards,
MM

Not_a_boffin

12th Jul 2008, 09:05

"Is that really a good plan? "
Clearly not. But it's the only one we appear to have. In our "capability requirements"-based world, even something as "simple" as a plane guard/HDS/utility helo is too difficult to even think about, unless it's wrapped up into some overarching (and mainly unfunded) programme like MITL......

Bismark

12th Jul 2008, 13:43

The sooner people like Bismark stop willy waving and present a united front for the greater Joint good, the better for us, and the worse for our friends in the Treasury.

MM,

What a delight to see your balanced view. But sadly this is not reality, particularly from our brethren in light blue. Having attended many air power conferences over the years any attempt to show balance by CAS and his team by covering the full gamut of air power, including land and sea based, is sadly lacking. Even in this 90th year of the RAF there is no recognition (bar opening statements re the amalgamation of the RFC and RNAS in 1918) that they had responsibility for both disciplines from 1918 until 1939 (FAA) and 1918 - 1947 (Army).

The CVF is a Defence capability, not just an RN one, and no one would be more delighted than me to see joint arguement in its favour, but this is not happening - apart from people like you and a few others.

Aviation is Joint, not the rightful preserve of just one Service. It is not me that needs to grow up but those that argue that the RAF is the only Service that "does air".

Bis

Modern Elmo

12th Jul 2008, 15:52

Bismark,

Do you expect the RN to operate these aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf?

Magic Mushroom

12th Jul 2008, 16:33

The CVF is a Defence capability, not just an RN one, and no one would be more delighted than me to see joint arguement in its favour, but this is not happening - apart from people like you and a few others.

That is not my experience Bismark. I find the vast majority of RAF types are in favour of CVF, although I'll acknowledge many doubt the wisdom of procuring 2 x 65 000 vessels. I was one who favoured smaller 40 000 ton LHD style designs, but have now been won over by the likes of Not a Boffin.

However, why wouldn't we support CVF? A significant amount of our future fast jet procurement is predicated upon operating from it, and our helos are regular visitors. I'll acknowledge that there has been some shenanigans regarding the variant of F-35 favoured, but there are small communities of both shades of blue who seek to undermine the other.

Likewise, I've heard at least 2 RN Flag officers (one an engineer, the other having an AWO/PWO background) arguing that 'I don't care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF!' So it's not just elements within the RAF who sometimes undermine the FAA.

Overall however I find the vast majority of my RAF colleagues are in favour. We must now ensure that that united front is maintained. Arguing for or against one specific flavour of air power will only undermine Joint capability.

Regards,
MM

Bismark

13th Jul 2008, 13:04

MM,

I couldn't agree with you more, but it is at Group level and above that the problem starts.

Bis

Occasional Aviator

13th Jul 2008, 16:01

I have to second MM. I just cannot see where the RN's paranoia over the RAF somehow 'plotting against the carrier' comes from. And yes, all three services have something to contriute to the air COMPONENT, but don't confuse the requirement for unity of component command with 'the RAF' trying to control everything that flies. I really hope the carrieres do not get cancelled, partly because I think they provide useful flexibility in deploying air power, but mainly because regardless of the reason they are cancelled, I'm sure it will pass into RN legend that it was the dastardly RAF who undermined the programme. If you look at how bad we are in putting out a united front on things that ARE important to us, how on earth do you suppose we could convincingly brief against another service's project?

However, since you have raised the point, I have never yet heard a convincing argument why the RN needs to own any of the jets or provide any of the pilots. Arguments like "we tried it in the 1920s and it didn't work" are as specious as "the RAF won't want to go to sea". I don't have a problem with the FAA (in fact, some of the most professional crews I have ever worked with are RN), but I just think that it is not best value for UK defence to try to run an unsustainably-small cadre of single-seat fast jet pilots who will do exactly the same training as their RAF counterparts and be employed interchangeably. Everywhere else we have made things more effective by reducing duplication (for example, the Jt GBAD Regt), so why not here?

Magic Mushroom

13th Jul 2008, 18:14

MM,

I couldn't agree with you more, but it is at Group level and above that the problem starts.

Bis

I still think that that assertion is wrong.

OA,

I disagree. I think the advantages offered by having aircrew who understand the ethos and wider operational implications for naval and Army aviation is clear. Whilst I accept that the RN has struggled (some would say failed) to maintain a viable fixed wing aircrew cadre for almost 40 years, I don't think that that is irrecoverable. Indeed, it could be suggested that the decision to drastically cut back on carrier aviation in the 60s contributed to that situation. CVF has the potential to reverse that situation.

However, RN aviators have for many years been denied the opportunities of an aviation related career beyond SO1 rank and this has undoubtedly also been a contributory factor. I see signs now that that is changing, with the establishment of several aviation flag appointments.

It's a shame the Army aren't following the RN's example.:hmm:

In short, it will always be to the Joint advantage if the RN and Army have experienced aviators capable of fighting air power's corner both within their own services, and from their services' standpoint in Joint appointments such as a CAOC.

However, I think there is some debate to be had on whether those RN (and RM) aviators are part of Joint sqns, or naval air sqns in their own right. From my perspective, I think they should be naval sqns but with a greatly increased number of light blue exchange posts. Similarly, it should be an accepted part of a RN aviators career progression to spend time with the RAF (and for that matter the Army). In that way, Joint understanding will improve, and Joint suspicion will reduce.

Regards,
MM

Occasional Aviator

13th Jul 2008, 20:58

MM,

thanks very much for that, you make some very good points and I do agree with you in many ways. However, on a strict value-for-money argument it is difficult to justify. FWIW, I would go the same way as you, and offer more opportunities for naval aviators to take up RAF (and air component) posts - however, the consequence is that they then become even less different to RAF officers....

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to see the FAA disbanded, but I just haven't heard an argument that is likely to sound convincing in the RP world yet. My remarks were a little ill-judged, but I do get a little irritable every time the RAF is accused of opposing the carriers.

I think the debate is there to be had though, just to make sure we're not missing a trick. For example, I would hate to see service politics get in the way of building a proper carrier strike capability - with exchanges on F-18, EA-6B, latterly F-14 etc, the RAF has a lot of experience to offer the RN in operating capable jets off big carriers.

Oh, and JunglyAEO, I think you need to do some more research into Jt GBAD and the RAF Regt. I don't know of another organisation that provides highly cost-effective, specialist force protection to the air component, do you? They're not a manoeuvre unit or something that can be integrated into the Army's readiness cycle. Unlike, for example, the RM....

althenick

13th Jul 2008, 23:34

" Arguments like (1)"we tried it in the 1920s and it didn't work" are as specious as (2)"the RAF won't want to go to sea". "

O_A

Point 1 - If it did work then why did (a) the FAA end up with Dross aircraft while the rest of the RAF got state of the art machines?

Point 2 - Ok I only got 55 votes but the result was a bit of a surprise none the less

copy and paste

Jointery - Going to Sea - E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992)

Al

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

14th Jul 2008, 10:08

I would say that a lot of this hinges on how the Navy will operate embarked aviation. Traditionally, embarked aviation has been deployed as part of the ship's weapon system; as in parallel with gunnery and ASW. A Naval aviator has traditionally been a Naval Officer first and an aviator second. Indeed, many aviators gain watchkeeping and warfare qualifications and, in turn, command ships.

So what M M said earlier about a limited FAA career path beyond SO1 is true if an officer wishes to remain an aviator. There are opportunities to progress up the "Ship" command chain, though, beyond aviation.

The question is probably; is a Carrier a discreet entity, with its own supporting Task Group and aviation as part of its weapon fit or is it just a "taxi" for deployed aviation?

andyy

15th Jul 2008, 14:40

I can't be bothered to trawl through all the pages of this thread so some of the following may be a repetition of others work, sorry, but to be honest, I'll still be amazed if we ever see these ships in service.

The parallels with the late 60s are incredible. They are vastly expensive to build and operate, we will be trying to design and build a new generation SSBN, new reactor and new "N" weapon all at the same time, we have several foreign operations which need to be funded, the economy is not looking great for the next few years and the public/ treasury/ and some of the RAF (& even the RN) don't seem to see the need. I fully expect the next Government to look at the books, look at the requirement (and competing requirements) and cancel.

Hard choices will have to be made and I would sugget that the Carriers are easier to cancel than the development of the next generation deterrent.

It should be borne in mind that work (& therefore spending) on the next generation nuclear submarine reactor has already started. (I am told that the reactor in Astute can't be used in the next generation of N Subs - age of the design vs safety case limitations - If we don't have new reactor we are out of the N sub game when the current boats reach the end of their lives and I can't see that happening).

It should also be borne in mind that, in addition to new reactors we will need to have new warheads, for the next generation deterrent system (even if it remains Trident based) - We can't use the existing warheads much longer (safety case, again) & can't buy in from abroad (N Proliferation Treat etc). Weapon development cost alone will be huge.

In addition, eventually someone will wake up and see that the Carriers are massively operationally compromised. Not only will we have all our eggs in one basket but:
1. The force protection assets (ie the FFs & DDs) that are needed to accompany them have been cut.
2. There is no plan for indigenous air to air refuelling or long range/endurance AEW assets (I don't count the Sea King AEW & C helos as long range) thus increasing reliance on accompanying shore based RAF assets. If we have to have the shore based support for AAR & AEW then some in the RAF/ Treasury will probably argue that they can provide the stike assets from ashore, too.
3. JSF in its STOVL form may well not yet happen - the ships are initially planned to go to sea with the Harrier GR9 but as we have seen with current ops they are in very short supply. For the first few years of life the ships will have very limited utility without an Air Group and any plan for cats & traps will require another major rethink (I am led to believe that there is a contingency plan to fit cats & traps at the first major refit - more expense and probably very difficult to engineer in if the hull & systems have not been designed for it in the first place!!).
4. Crucially, the weapons designed for JSF (Brimstone and Storm Shadow) do not have a safety case for Replenishment At Sea (RAS) (and the required upgrades to achieve this have been taken as a cost saving measure) thus limiting the strike endurance to the limited outfit carried. A major shortcomming. (Similarly these weapons need to be taken ashore to be tested/recalibrated every 2 years (I think) & so will need to be landed ashore from alongside at somewhere like Crombie (Probably the only place possible & this makes Rosyth as a FOB even more likely, I would say, and adds to the support costs as in reality an extra "Naval Base" will have been created again)).

I remain a pessimist.

Regards

Occasional Aviator

15th Jul 2008, 16:44

First of all, let me state that I was having a particularly bad day yesterday and so I was unnecssarily grumpy in my posts. I will get off my high horse but I do get annoyed when people continuously accuse the RAF of being anti-carrier. This is not so, and I personally am in favour of their procurement - but that dosen't mean we shouldn't debate the issues. To wit:

Allthenick,

Point 1: (a) It wasn't as simple as that. One of the issues is that the RN provided observers, not pilots to the maritime part of the RAF, and they did not push aircraft specifications as pilots might - they were, after all, seaman officers on a short tour - compare to the problems the AAC had when their officers were mostly five-minute wonders. But anyway,

(b) I really do think it is different today. everybody is much more joint, the single services do not control procurement to anywhere near the same degree and we are (generally) more interested in achieving joint effect rather than securing a bigger slice of the budget than the other two services. I am not suggesting that the RAF should own everything that flies, merely pointing out that there might be scope for efficiency here.

Point 2: Of course you're right that going to sea is unappealing to people who are used to working at MOBs. But so is living in dusty tents in hot places - I expect you could run a poll about that and get similar results. At the end of the day, we do as we're effing told. Although actually I think that it would be much better for the maintainers and other key surface-employed individuals in the carrier strike capablitiy to be RN, so that the capability of the ship is maximised. I was really just talking about the pilots, who will do the same job whether they're RN or RAF. I don't think you'll find many of them on e-goat.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,

Read some Doctrine. Carrier air is a joint asset, not a ship's weapon system. It is not the RN who will decide how carriers are used, but CJO. A carrier can be either a taxi for embarked aviation, or part of a group with a discrete task.

althenick

15th Jul 2008, 22:19

“It wasn't as simple as that. One of the issues is that the RN provided observers, not pilots to the maritime part of the RAF, and they did not push aircraft specifications as pilots might - they were, after all, seaman officers on a short tour - compare to the problems the AAC had when their officers were mostly five-minute wonders. But anyway,”

Wrong O_A

1918 – The FAA of the RAF were manned by 85% light-blue and as you rightly say, the rest were RN observers. HOWEVER by 1925 FAA Squadrons were pretty much turned around to 90:10 Dark to Light Blue. Why this is I don’t know but I suspect that it was because Uncle Hugh couldn’t convince his boys that the sea-going option was the way ahead (Did he not say that carrier aviation was inherently dangerous?) And not until the Mid ‘30’s did the admiralty have any say in aircraft design. Thomas Inskip was no fool, he must have seen the problems for both services.

“I really do think it is different today. everybody is much more joint, the single services do not control procurement to anywhere near the same degree and we are (generally) more interested in achieving joint effect rather than securing a bigger slice of the budget than the other two services. I am not suggesting that the RAF should own everything that flies, merely pointing out that there might be scope for efficiency here.”

First off – I agree with jointery. Having up to 3 support systems for a single airframe type is ludicrous, but I fail to see how sending people to sea that don’t want to be there is efficient – operationally or monetarily. P1ss people off and they leave, take a look at the wage bill for the MoD and Services and you’ll see what I mean. People are expensive – to train and replace. Common working practices and support systems are a brill idea, everything else is cack.

“But so is living in dusty tents in hot places - I expect you could run a poll about that and get similar results.”

Actually I did! – and got 100% turn out from the Fleet Air Arm ;-)

See here

The Navy Net: Rum Ration › Forums › RN Branches › The Fleet Air Arm › NAVAL STRIKE WING (http://www.navy-net.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=14558.html)

“we do as we're effing told. Although actually I think that it would be much better for the maintainers and other key surface-employed individuals in the carrier strike capablitiy to be RN, so that the capability of the ship is maximised. I was really just talking about the pilots, who will do the same job whether they're RN or RAF. I don't think you'll find many of them on e-goat.”

Unfortunately the ranks make up the majority of RAF (but only just) so them voting with their feet wont do the RAF any good. Though I dare say that carrier ops on any resume for a pilot looks good.

Mr Grim

16th Jul 2008, 01:54

Actually I did! – and got 100% turn out from the Fleet Air Arm

What? Both of them said yes? :}

SammySu

16th Jul 2008, 09:18

andyy

Since when have Brimstone and Stormshadow been "the weapons designed for JSF"?

andyy

16th Jul 2008, 09:53

"designed for" was probably a bit strong but it will carry them:

RAF - F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

16th Jul 2008, 09:56

Occasional Aviator. You mean like the Doctrine I referred to at Srl 1807; BR1806? http://www.pprune.org/forums/4232601-post1807.html
As ever, such works can be interpreted in more than one way; as can the principle of "Jointery". I would hope that you have not become fixated with such entries as Ch 8, Page 197 (UNCLAS);

The command and control function for operations ashore can be
based at sea. Although not an aircraft carrier’s principal role, the UK’s
CVSs have the facilities for a JTFHQ (Afloat). In principle, an essentially
land orientated operation can be commanded by the Joint Task Force
Commander entirely from the sea, although the Land Component
Commander is likely to feel more comfortable exercising his command
from a location ashore. The Air Component Commander and key
elements of his headquarters would collocate with the JTFC with the
other elements in a Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) ashore.
Nevertheless, the JTFHQ (Afloat) may have important advantages,
particularly in the early stages of an operation or during withdrawal
when its mobility, security, and command and control fit, combined
with a collocated source of support helicopters, may make it a
compelling solution.

If the Carriers we are discussing are to be of any worth, they would be the spearhead of an offensive expeditionary Force and long before land forces were established. The self same operations that the Navy has experience of and trains and exercises for.

It may have not been immediately clear but, earlier, we were discussing Naval aviation (eg career structures for Naval aviators) which is not exactly the same as embarked aviation.

Occasional Aviator

16th Jul 2008, 11:48

I'm clearly not expressing myself very clearly, judging by the amout people have written in response to arguments I didn't think I was making!

Allthenick - I apologise, your grasp of the history of naval aviation is clearly superior to mine. I did say "ONE of the reasons...". What I was trying to say though, is that the issues regarding the RAF's attitude to maritime air in the 1920s are just not relevant today. It is also a fact that, during the inter-war years, maritime air suffered from underinvestment from BOTH the RAF and RN. In any case, capabilities are now supposed to be developed and funded by MOD centre, so which service operates the kit is frankly irrelevant.

Unfortunately the ranks make up the majority of RAF (but only just) so them voting with their feet wont do the RAF any good.

I don't know what you're getting at here. I was trying to suggest that actually it should be the RN that provides the maintainers and enablers on board. Don't see why that would make RAF ORs leave.

My observation was that I have not yet heard a compelling, RP-proof justifcation for maintaining a tiny cadre of RN fast-jet pilots. Intuitively, I see a lot of merit in it, but I'd like to know what the arguments are.

This is the way I see it, and please correct me if I have misunderstood how the force will be run: if a young man joins the RN to fly JSF, after dartmouth, he does absolutely everything the same as his RAF counterpart. The training, conversion to type and so on, and when he gets to the front line in a mixed RN/RAF force, he is used totally interchangeably with his RAF colleagues.

There are clearly intangibles at play in terms of ethos imbued during officer training etc, but I believe sea-mindedness and an understanding of carrier ops will come from operating at sea, not from some secret effect from wearing gold braid on your shoulders rather than a bar-code. If the RAF JSF pilots are doing this as much as the RN pilots, why shouldn't they be just as good at it? Before you answer, think how you'd reply if I suggested that FAA pilots could never be truly air-minded because they weren't in the RAF - that's clearly not true, so I don't see why it should be different the other way around.

I'm not trolling, or suggesting that the RAF should own everything that flies, but I'm genuinely interested. What are the TANGIBLE advantages of maintaining some RN pilots in the JSF force?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,

If the Carriers we are discussing are to be of any worth, they would be the spearhead of an offensive expeditionary Force and long before land forces were established. The self same operations that the Navy has experience of and trains and exercises for.

Yes, absolutely. And also the self-same operations that an element of the RAF has experience of and trains for, and will do in future as part of the JSF force. Don't see your point.

GreenKnight121

16th Jul 2008, 19:15

3. JSF in its STOVL form may well not yet happen - the ships are initially planned to go to sea with the Harrier GR9 but as we have seen with current ops they are in very short supply. For the first few years of life the ships will have very limited utility without an Air Group and any plan for cats & traps will require another major rethink (I am led to believe that there is a contingency plan to fit cats & traps at the first major refit - more expense and probably very difficult to engineer in if the hull & systems have not been designed for it in the first place!!).

So little understanding in so many words.

A. "JSF in its STOVL form" absolutely WILL happen... for the USMC. The F-35B is the ONLY F-35 variant the USMC will buy, as it is specifically designed for them, and they won't buy either of the others. The -B is secure from that standpoint alone... but there is more.

Italy & Spain are also planning to order the -B... Spain for Juan Carlos I (and possibly the replacement for Asturias), and Italy for both Cavour (and possibly the replacement for Girabaldi) AND their Air Force, who has decided to buy both -A and -B versions for land use.

The only question is "will the UK buy the F-35B? Probably, as they are to be purchased for BOTH carrier and RAF land-based use... less than half are earmarked for regular use on CVF.

B. CVF's hull & systems have certainly been designed for fitting of catapults and arresting gear "at a later date"... that is a specific KUR in the design... "space & weight set aside for catapults and arresting gear"!

No "rethink" required... it is part of the plan & design from the start.

Tourist

16th Jul 2008, 19:30

OA
"What are the TANGIBLE advantages of maintaining some RN pilots in the JSF force?"

Now we have carriers coming back, they will need Captains, who are traditionally pilots and in the case of proper carriers usually Jet boys.

I can't see the RN allowing RAF pumpers to skipper our ships, can you?

Until we lost our proper carriers, traditionally aircrew could get to the top in the Navy. They did this via the route of captaining ships. Once we lost them, it tended to be Nuke boat Captains, since they have the "teeth".

After years in the wilderness, we need some aircrew in the higher echelons of the RN to make sure that we utilise the capabilities of them properly. RAF pilots alone on our ships will not achieve this.

The Helpful Stacker

16th Jul 2008, 19:49

The RAF used to run motor launches well enough, just give them the CVF's.

How hard can it be to drive a big boat about and hold the occasional cocktail party?

;)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

16th Jul 2008, 22:23

Occasional Aviator. I was going to reply to your Srl 1840 but Tourist beat me to it more than adequately.

I am also reminded that aviation wasn't always used to best advantage down South in '82. That was largely attributable to both of the big fellahs, Fieldhouse and Woodward, being submariners. Personally, I found that preferrable to an air warfare genius with neither the training or experience for fighting at sea.

As Tourist says, the FAA is needed as a core offensive force as it's the means of cultivating air orientated ship commanders and Flag Officers. While Jointery has many merits if applied sensibly, it has many dangerous flaws if applied in a "all Services are the same and operational commanders can be picked and mixed" manner.

It's interesting that this Thread has 2 sub Threads;

a. cats and traps v STOVL and Air Group composition

b. how Carriers fit within current Joint doctrine and their single Service impact

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2008, 07:31

My observation was that I have not yet heard a compelling, RP-proof justifcation for maintaining a tiny cadre of RN fast-jet pilots. Intuitively, I see a lot of merit in it, but I'd like to know what the arguments are.

Just some observations.

The RAF draws its Harrier pilots (I refer to Harriers deliberately :}) from a relatively large pool of pilot applicants.

The RN, OTOH, has a far smaller pilot pool with all its FJ pilots having to fly the Harrier. In the RAF therefore some 20% FJ pilots (I guess) are Harrier pilots whereas it must be 100% RN.

Of the rest, the RAF probably has more billets for those who are not Harrier capable at the outset and, as importantly, lots more billets for those who grow old.

I would concede that the Harrier Command pool is the same size in both RN and RAF because that is the way it is Loaded :)

Put simply, RN pilot applicants have to eneter as the creme d'l creme or become helicopter aircrew.

andyy

17th Jul 2008, 08:32

Quote:

The only question is "will the UK buy the F-35B? Probably, as they are to be purchased for BOTH carrier and RAF land-based use... less than half are earmarked for regular use on CVF.

B. CVF's hull & systems have certainly been designed for fitting of catapults and arresting gear "at a later date"... that is a specific KUR in the design... "space & weight set aside for catapults and arresting gear"!

No "rethink" required... it is part of the plan & design from the start".

GK121

Hmmm, OK but your question about whether the UK will buy the B or not is massively valid.

There is also a big difference between "space and weight set aside for catapults and arrester gear" and actually being "part of the plan and design from the start". Where is the steam going to come from, for a start? The ship hasn't even got its power plant finalised yet. And don't tell me we are going to use an electromagnetic catapult - we'll never get a safety case for the a/c to carry any damn weapons. (And BTW my (very good) info is that Cats & Traps was never part of the original design and that it is a requirement that has been added later) one of the many changes that have vastly increased cost).

Finally, you have not made any attempt to answer my point about the operational limitations of having a Carrier with no on board AAR or long range AEW, or the problems of the limited strike outfit due to the problems of RASing Brimstone and Storm Shadow, much less any comment about the competing budgetary pressures.

So much faith and so little justification.

Not_a_boffin

17th Jul 2008, 09:30

Your "very good" info is in fact somewhat far from the mark, as is the assertion that the power plant isn't finalised yet (its probably the most worked up part of the design and has been for some time).

BAE & Thales both put forward STOVL and cat n trap designs in 2002/3. MoD decided to hedge against the Dave-B variant missing it's KUR and asked for provision for a convertible design. The "changes" that have added cost are largely a myth. The cost increase is a result of failure to update the long-term costing lines when designs based around a flypro began to be generated in 2000-2001. Strangely enough, these were larger than the MoD concepts of 98 that merely stuffed 40 aircraft into a hull with no thought of operating them and on which the LTC lines were based. When the mis-match became apparent, the MoD spent three years (and several tens of million) trying to get a quart from a pint pot before bowing to the inevitable. Not requirement creep, merely failure to monitor costs continuously combined with a poor initial understanding of what the ship needed to look like.

andyy

17th Jul 2008, 11:05

NaB, I accept that I am talking about the original requirement up to about '98 but nevertheless that was what the budget was originally planned around. Increases in CVF budget since have been at the expense of some other projects.

The requirement was originally for a floating runway and no more. A Flat top commercial hull essentially. The combat power was to be invested in the aircraft, not the hull and the operational control of the air assets was to be driven from the accompanying T45. There was to be no Flag/ JTFHQ facilities either (indeed there was a proposal for a conversion of Ark Royal to a USS Mount Whitney type Command ship). I am sure that much has changed and that operational realism may have dictated some changes but I don't accept that there hasn't been requirement creep without accompanying budget increase to match.

Still no one has countered the issues surrounding the lack of AAW & AEW, the lack of utility with a limited weapon outfit that can't have reloads RASed, or the difficulties that the Defence budget will have in funding the Carriers at the same time as funding significant N reactor and weapon development.

Don't get me wrong, I would really like to see the CVF happen but I just don't think it will.

Not_a_boffin

17th Jul 2008, 12:03

Must have been a different requirement to the one I helped write all those years ago.......I can guarantee you that any significant increase in cost since 2003 has been as a result of costs incurred through MoD p1ssing about rather than requirements growth.

Specific points -

1.If anything the hull has become more "commercial" as time has passed in an attempt to drive costs out of it. A floating runway cannot possibly operate a TAG effectively without briefing/planning facilities, intel etc in addition to the usual maintenance, servicing facilities.
2. The growth in size (which has had the majority of the cost associated with it) has come from realistic consideration of a flypro. JFHQ(A) will have had some impact, but not substantially so.
3. All the combat power of the ship is invested in the TAG. I don't consider FTR CIWS to be combat power!
4. DCA is a function of what weapons Dave can carry (plus MASC capability) and while I would not for one moment suggest that it's ideal, it should be better than SHAR.
5. Not sure where your limited weapon outfit comes from. I've seen the mag designs and there's plenty of room. SS can be RASed (it's a design driver for MARS) but is in no way the primary weapon for Dave, nor is Brimstone.

Occasional Aviator

17th Jul 2008, 13:11

Tourist, GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,

thank you. Those are the sorts of things I needed to know, and hadn't thought of. I'm more in favour of a mixed force now.

The 'captain of a carrier' issue is interesting - I would have thought that there would be no way an RAF officer could get the necessary 'tickets' to do that. However, I think it will be a real challenge for general-list RN officers to have a meaningful flying career on JSF. Perhaps an increased assimilation into the air component would be the best way of giving aviators a career path?

Modern Elmo

18th Jul 2008, 01:18

Finally, you have not made any attempt to answer my point about the operational limitations of having a Carrier with no on board AAR or long range AEW, or the problems of the limited strike outfit ...

Just build two big boats dammit, and maybe a future generation will fill in the blank spots and missing equipment.

andyy

18th Jul 2008, 07:24

NaB, I obviously shouldn't take issue with the person that wrote the requirement but my info, whilst second hand, did come from 2 x 1*s who sat on the Sub Navy Board and discussed these issues ad nauseum, so its info that has some provenance.

dervish

18th Jul 2008, 07:58

Out of interest, could someone enlighten me - does "long range" typically refer to the aircraft endurance or the radar range; or a mixture of both? What is the optimum?

Do we even have a choice?

Thanks in advance.

Not_a_boffin

18th Jul 2008, 09:32

Not taking credit (blame!) for anything like the full requirement, but I have read all the dossier sections of ST(S) 7068 from cover to cover, ditto the Initial Requirements Document that was derived a couple of years later and the subsequent ship tech spec.

1*s at Navy Board committee meetings may think they've understood something but in my experience frequently hear what they want to, regardless of what is actually in the document.

Long range AEW ought to be a combination of platform and sensor, but also needs to be persistent as well (combination of speed and platform endurance) - something frequently overlooked.

dervish

18th Jul 2008, 14:40

Not a Boffin

Thank you for that. Reading past posts it looks like at one time the plan was to transfer the Sea King mission system to a new platform. Is this still the case, because the problem with costings may get worse if it can't fit or needs major re-work? I'm assuming it is currently optimised in some way for a rotary wing platform, but don't pretend to understand the detail. But I do remember reading it was pretty expensive in the first place.

Not_a_boffin

18th Jul 2008, 15:00

You are assuming there is a plan............

MASC IPT has existed within CVF IPT for at least four years. They have however (like Elmer Fudd) been vewy, vewy quiet.....

hulahoop7

18th Jul 2008, 15:14

Maybe it's what you don't see. Is it just a coincidence that 30 out of the 44 ASW Merlins are being updated - leaving a handy batch of 12 (i can't remember how many have been lost)? Could these cabs be adopted...

greenfreddie

22nd Jul 2008, 08:06

Just to pitch in briefly with some of the issues required for an Air Force chap to get the necessary tickets to drive a ship (not to mention an internationally recognised qualification in the sport)....

...though obviously professional seamen (or "Warfare Officers" to mitigate the obvious puns) are on hand to help out...

a. It takes a very long time to accrue the necessary experience. Unlike flying, practice at the things most likely to cause damage (entering / leaving harbour, refuelling, transferring ammunition etc. etc.) doesn't happen every time you get on watch. If we're talking carriers, you might get one opportunity per month to get your hands dirty. Meaningful warfighting training is even less frequent. A phobia of certain training serials isn't particularly uncommon amongst junior watchkeepers. To put things into perspective, a pilot achieves solo standard in a little more than 10 hours flying, to tick the same boxes with a ship demands years of experience. It probably doesn't have to, but thats the way things are done. Naval pilots still have to succumb to several tours afloat before getting the reins of something worthwhile (aside from university training "ships" and minesweepers (the classic tick-in-the-box appointment)). One "heavy landing" will make you star of the Sun for the day.

b. Learning the job is a humdrum existance. Yes, the "evolutions" mentioned above are fun. There is nothing like ordering "Start and Select Port and Starboard Olympus" and hearing the shreik of the air starters preceeding the howl of 50,000 shaft horsepower coming on line, but the day to day cruising watches spent avoiding fishing boats get less coverage in the recruiting pamphlets. Neither, for that matter, does the task of getting the lookouts to look busy when the grown-ups are around. (they are required for their own training but, realistically, as it is your own arse on the line, you are obliged to cover their arcs as well as running the navigation, flying operations (launch / recovery), warfighting, telephone exchange / tannoy, training your relief ("replacement")).

c. It requires expert knowledge to be credible in front of the "Bridge Union" who deal with the day to day, varicose vein inducing tedium, and, when the sh1t really hits the fan, to enable the Captain (that's you) to make the decisions which will quickly determine the longevity of the hundreds of individuals below. (The applicant should be advised that he will have to weigh the advice of Heads of Department themselves equipped with relatively scant sea experience). Incidentally the XO of HMS Nottingham (vs little island off of Australia) was an aviator who did an exceptional job in circumstances which should have resulted in the loss of the ship.

d. Sleep. Most captains seem to do with very little of it. The working day is generally 0600 to Midnight. Within the small gap in the diary for rest, just remember that your Officer of the Watch is obliged to wake you for any vessel likely to come within 2 miles of the ship's course....you can't be too careful when it comes to WW2 german gunboats...)...

e. Rust. The sight of anything other than battleship grey in gloss will quickly become your personal bete noir. Unfortunately your front door will be pelted with that nasty salt water 24/7, resulting in a most displeasing first impression for visiting dignitaries, wives, lovers etc.

The job is a little bit different to getting the reins of RAF Cottesmore. But then again, join the navy and you'll get used to a bit of hard work:E

Wader2

22nd Jul 2008, 10:33

Long range AEW ought to be a combination of platform and sensor, but also needs to be persistent as well (combination of speed and platform endurance) - something frequently overlooked.

Dervish,

Long range is also a function of altitude. The higher the better to extend over the horizon detection. The greater the detection range the further out must an attacker or intruder is forced to low level to deleay detection.

Threat direction is also a factor. Against a range-limited foe, if you stand far enough off the coast, then you have a narrow threat sector and can afford to stand further up threat from the CV.

For inshore operations you need 360 coverage and, depending on the AEW capability, you may need 2 or more platforms at a time to give adequate coverage.

Long range also has a usage when is comes to the &C aspect. The AEW platform can assist in recovery and vectoring AAR for returning jets.

dervish

22nd Jul 2008, 11:16

Wader 2

Many thanks. Understand.

Navaleye

22nd Jul 2008, 12:27

greenfreddie,

I agree 100% with your post. Unfortunately even the FAA pilots will struggle to make the grade when it comes to ship driving as they are not getting anything like enough sea time due to being in some desert. Hopefully things will improve as we get nearer to CVF.

Occasional Aviator

22nd Jul 2008, 14:08

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. An acquaintance of mine in the FAA feels that to make a decent job of operating JSF, a pilot won't have time to drive ships.

Modern Elmo

24th Jul 2008, 00:41

Germany Completes Radar Constellation

Jul 22, 2008
#content td div img { padding-right:10px; padding-bottom:2px}html.ie6 #content td div img { padding-right:10px; padding-bottom:0px; }div.storyContent p { margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 14px;}html.ie6 div.storyContent p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;}#mainNav { margin-top:0px;}By Michael A. Taverna
http://aviationnow.com/media/images/space_images/Miscellaneous/SAR-LupeOHB-SYSTEMAG.jpg Germany has orbited the fifth and final satellite in its SARLupe X-band satellite constellation, providing the German armed forces and Europe with its first full space-based radar imaging capability.
Like the four preceding spacecraft, the 1,700-pound satellite was orbited from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia atop a Cosmos 3M launcher.
First contact between the spacecraft and the German Aerospace Center control facility in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, was established at 5:43 Central European Time on July 22, 1 hour 3 minutes after launch, and a preliminary check found all systems working nominally, according to prime contractor OHB-System.
The satellite will be handed over to the German forces in late August, when the system will reahttp://151.108.55.35/iw-cc/command/iw.group.formspub.save_valid_form Save Form EntrySavech full deployment status. The five SARLupe spacecraft occupy three orbital planes to provide coverage of the entire globe. The first SARLupe launch was in December 2006 (Aerospace DAILY, Dec. 22, 2006).
Germany will be able to fuse the radar imagery from SARLupe with optical images from France's Helios II system under a data sharing agreement between the two countries that went into effect in January, providing timely all-weather day/night IMINT support to troops in overseas theaters, notably in Afghanistan.

Germany Completes Radar Constellation | AVIATION WEEK (http://aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SAR07228.xml&headline=Germany%20Completes%20Radar%20Constellation&channel=space)

You gents understand what this means?

With five radarsats up, the D-landers can find and track your large surface ships anywhere on the planet. Hope they don't share info with not-so-nice people.

BEagle

24th Jul 2008, 06:37

Hope they don't share info with not-so-nice people.

Such as Mad George Dubya's spooks?

Modern Elmo

24th Jul 2008, 13:58

Mr. BAEgle,

Was your boy Tony any saner in 2003?

Now, to return to topic, you fellows need to absorb the fact that large surface ships CANNOT hide anywhere on this planet's oceans from better-equipped foreigners.

The same is true for the US Nav.

The main point is: large, ultra expensive aircraft carriers are on their way to becoming the battleships of the 21st century, heading for the "must keep the fleet in being" syndrome of 1917-1918.

drustsonoferp

24th Jul 2008, 14:51

Quite right, they cannot hide, though they can be defended so long as we choose to equip the Navy to be better equipped vs a/c than just submarines.

If we are going to continue to alienate much of the Middle East and fight the world over in conflicts debatable and often unpopular, then having our own portable airfielf without desperate need of overflight rights, dipclear etc could be almost indispensable.

Navaleye

24th Jul 2008, 15:08

Modern Elmo

24th Jul 2008, 15:44

Lets get real. Back in the 80s the Ruskies had a thing called SOSS (Soviet Ocean Surveillance System) which could tell pretty accurately where our surface units were and we could do the same more accurately by other means. This is nothing new and therefore changes nothing.

You are correct. Back then the trend was already underway for aircraft carriers to become the battleships of 2017-2018. At least the big CV's that cannot be replaced in a finite number of years are going to go the way of the dreadnoughts.

I suppose we can debate whether or not your two enlarged Invincibles ought to be lumped into this category.

You British large aircraft carrier fanboys always seem to assume that your future war will be a replay of Los Islas Malvinas 1982.

Today's Britain ... Always chasing yesteryear's military technology.

Navaleye

24th Jul 2008, 16:34

You British large aircraft carrier fanboys always seem to assume that your future war will be a replay of Los Islas Malvinas 1982.

Today's Britain ... Always chasing yesteryear's military technology.

Modern,

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Current RN doctrine differs little from that of the USN and USMC. A CVF with 40 Dave-Bs will offer a comparable first night capability to a CVN with a mixed airgroup. If you look at most military conflicts they are one-off events and it is sensible to look at the past when considering the future. The RN does not plan in the dark, it is done in the broader NATO context. CVF offers excellent value for money by any measure. Argentina is still making bellicose comments regarding sovereign British territory which is why we have an airbase and a permanent naval presence. I would not be surprised if a CVF did not pass that way on its way to the Pacific via Cape Horn just to prove a point to the Corned Beef producers. I would like to see them take a pop at a Queen Elizabeth battlegroup with an Astute, two T45s and T23 escorts. Military power is all about deterrence you see.

Modern Elmo

24th Jul 2008, 20:53

I would not be surprised if a CVF did not pass that way on its way to the Pacific via Cape Horn just to prove a point to the Corned Beef producers.

And that's the point of Britain allocating scarce military funds to build two large aircraft carriers?

What are Prince of Wales and the Queen E. going to do in the Pacific? Cruise around the Yellow Sea and through the Straits of Taiwan to show the flag?

Jackonicko

24th Jul 2008, 20:57

Modern Elmo

"The main point is: large, ultra expensive aircraft carriers are on their way to becoming the battleships of the 21st century, heading for the "must keep the fleet in being" syndrome of 1917-1918."

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

:ok:

(and an extremely slow, vulnerable, inflexible, expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power....)

Navaleye

25th Jul 2008, 00:30

and being the most capable and flexible strike platform the UK armed forces have ever had. You folks really need to kep up with current affairs ! Off to a nice bar in West Palm Beach. Good night chaps.

Navaleye

25th Jul 2008, 04:45

and an extremely slow, vulnerable, inflexible, expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.

Jacko, please name me one land facility that can move 500 miles in a day and can approach its target from virtually any direction.

Could the following have happened without carriers?

1917: Cuxhaven airship raids
1940: Taranto
1941: Pearl Harbour

add: Korea, Suez, Vietnam, Libya

1982: Falklands

Do you see a pattern building here? Flexibility is the key and carrier air strike offers it at the best available price which is why HMG have gone for it it. Face facts.

I know many of us see your position this way :) :ugh:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/Navaleye/IMG_0290.jpg

BEagle

25th Jul 2008, 06:16

Off to a nice bar in West Palm Beach

That'll be the Blue Oyster, I guess.....:ooh:

If the UK armed forces really needed flexibility, we wouldn't have allowed the government to throw away our strategic bombing capability, strategic reconnaissance ability etc etc....and to have contracted out core capabilities to civilian companies.

Some of our clapped out old aeroplanes need replacement NOW. I'm just not convinced that the 2 carriers have such priority in our defence budget.

NURSE

25th Jul 2008, 10:54

Agree'd however since most of our aircraft are now built by foreign companies we would have to wait to get them any way.
The decision to order is nothing to do with the UKDF strageic needs its to do with Gordon Brown having a job after the next election!
The Defence budget espically the Naval one will go into melt down soon when the trident replacement boats have to be ordered and the treasury tell the mod to find the money out of their budgets.

Double Zero

25th Jul 2008, 12:31

Well ( as I'm sure everyone will agree ) I'm no strategic expert, but it strikes me that;

If we stick to asymetric warfare, carriers are very useful

( would the 'Black Hawk Down' incident have happened if there was a US or USMC carrier handy ? )

If we end up in a real, full-on war, carriers will be very useful.

On another tack, going back to the beginning of this thread, I remember seeing high photo-quality images of an American port supposedly taken by a Russian RORSAT quite a few years ago - the point is this thing could map out the UNDERWATER details to quite a depth...

Was that just B.S, or what with that & ever quieter attack subs ( air independent SSK's in particular ) are SSBN's more likely to 'go the way of the battleship ' ?

Hey presto ! Trident replacement budget problem solved...Treasury please PM me for where to send your large cheque in gratitude.

More likely, whether that RORSAT capability exists or not, it doesn't take a genius to see anti-satellite warfare becoming trendy, now other people are joining in and treaties seem redundant.

Navaleye

25th Jul 2008, 13:54

It used to be the case that the nuclear deterrent budget was shared amongst all three services and not just a navy liability. Is this still the case?

Not_a_boffin

25th Jul 2008, 14:48

Certainly wasn't the case for the V-boat build programme - part of the reason that we went from 50+ to 44 DD/FF IIRC and the extended life (decrepitude?) of Feraless & Intrepid. Elements of the supporting infrastructure might be purple, but AIUI the boats come straight out of Fleet & DGSM budgets.

While I'm at it, just having SOSS and RORSATs doesn't solve all your problems. Are they geostationary? Predictable orbits?

Navaleye

25th Jul 2008, 15:15

NaB,

SOSS was a mish-mash of satellites monitoring predicted operating areas of NATO battlegroups, backed up by aerial surveillance and shore based monitoring stations. Not perfect but always a worry that it was good enough.

Hoping to fly-out to Ark Royal this PM to monitor JFTEX-08. I asked who her RN escort was and the answer is none could be spared. That's how bad things are.

Not_a_boffin

25th Jul 2008, 18:18

Indeed - backed up by Mr Bear, there was that fear.

I know how bad things are - but you wouldn't believe it looking at the jetties in Pompey this w/e. I'm surprised Ark doesn't have a singleton though, given that by Tuesday the jetties will be empty again.....

Modern Elmo

26th Jul 2008, 00:34

Could the following have happened without carriers?

1917: Cuxhaven airship raids
1940: Taranto
1941: Pearl Harbour

...

Admiral Nelson: "Battleships are made to be sunk."

If you only have two, how many can you risk losing?

Ship Hull No. Comm. Decomm.
[or loss] Disposition

Langley 1 20 Mar 1922 27 Feb 1942 Conv. to AV 3; Sunk as a result enemy action about 75 miles south of Tjilatjap.

Lexington 2 14 Dec 1927 8 May 1942 Sunk as a result of enemy action at the Battle of the Coral Sea.

Saratoga 3 16 Nov 1927 on 21 February 1945, Saratoga was detached with an escort of three destroyers to join the amphibious forces and carry out night patrols over Iwo Jima and night heckler missions over nearby Chi-chi Jima. However, as she approached her operating area at 1700 on the 21st, an air attack developed, and taking advantage of low cloud cover and Saratoga's insufficient escort, six Japanese planes scored five hits on the carrier in three minutes. Saratoga's flight deck forward was wrecked, her starboard side was holed twice and large fires were started in her hangar deck, while she lost 123 of her crew dead or missing. Another attack at 1900 scored an additional bomb hit. By 2015, the fires were under control and the carrier was able to recover aircraft, but she was ordered to Eniwetok and then to the west coast for repairs, and arrived at Bremerton on 16 March.

...

Yorktown 5 30 Sep 1937 7 Jun 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of Midway

Enterprise 6 12 May 1938 17 Feb 1947 Repaired at Pearl Harbor from 10 September to 16 October 1942, Enterprise departed once more for the South Pacific where with Hornet, she formed TF 61. On 26 October, Enterprise scout planes located a Japanese carrier force and the Battle of the Santa Cruz Island was underway. Enterprise aircraft struck carriers, battleships, and cruisers during the struggle, while the "Big E" herself underwent intensive attack. Hit twice by bombs, Enterprise lost 44 killed and had 75 wounded. Despite serious damage, she continued in action and took on board a large number of planes from Hornet when that carrier had to be abandoned.
...

Damaged slightly by an enemy bomb on 18 March, Enterprise entered Ulithi six days later for repairs. Back in action on 5 April, she supported the Okinawa operation until again damaged (11 April), this time by a suicide plane, and forced back to Ulithi. Off Okinawa once more on 6 May 1945, Enterprise flew patrols around the clock as the menace of the kamikaze increased. On 14 May 1945, the "Big E" suffered her last wound of World War II when a suicide plane destroyed her forward elevator, killing 14 and wounding 34 men. The carrier sailed for repairs at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 7 June 1945.

Wasp 7 25 Apr 1940 15 Sep 1942 Sunk due to enemy action southeast of San Cristobal Island

Hornet 8 20 Oct 1941 26 Oct 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

...

Franklin 13 31 Jan 1944 17 Feb 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 10 Oct 1964 Before dawn on 19 March 1945 Franklin who had maneuvered closer to the Japanese mainland than had any other U.S. carrier during the war, launched a fighter sweep against Honshu and later a strike against shipping in Kobe Harbor. Suddenly, a single enemy plane pierced the cloud cover and made a low level run on the gallant ship to drop two semi-armor piercing bombs. One struck the flight deck centerline, penetrating to the hangar deck, effecting destruction and igniting fires through the second and third decks, and knocking out the combat information center and airplot. The second hit aft, tearing through two decks and fanning fires which triggered ammunition, bombs and rockets.

Franklin, within 50 miles of the Japanese mainland, lay dead in the water, took a 13° starboard list, lost all radio communications, and broiled under the heat from enveloping fires. Many of the crew were blown overboard, driven off by fire, killed or wounded, but the 106 officers and 604 enlisted who voluntarily remained saved their ship through sheer valor and tenacity. The casualties totaled 724 killed and 265 wounded, and would have far exceeded this number except for the heroic work of many survivors. Among these were Medal of Honor winners, Lt. Cmdr. Joseph T. O'Callahan, S. J., USNR, the ship's chaplain, who administered the last rites organized and directed firefighting and rescue parties and led men below to wet down magazines that threatened to explode, and Lt. (j.g.) Donald Gary who discovered 300 men trapped in a blackened mess compartment, and finding an exit returned repeatedly to lead groups to safety. USS Santa Fe (CL-60) similarly rendered vital assistance in rescuing crewmen from the sea and closing Franklin to take off the numerous wounded.
...

Princeton 23 25 Feb 1943 24 Oct 1944 Sunk On 20 October 1944, landings were made at Dulag and San Pedro Bay, Leyte. Princeton, in TG 38.3, cruised off Luzon and sent her planes against airfields there to prevent Japanese land based aircraft attacks on Allied ships massed in Leyte Gulf. On the 24th however, enemy planes from Clark and Nichols fields found TG 38.3 and reciprocated. Shortly before 1000 on 24 October 1944, a lone enemy dive-bomber came out of the clouds above Princeton. At 1500 feet the pilot released his bomb. It hit between the elevators, crashed through the flight deck and hangar, then exploded. Initial fires soon expanded as further explosions sent black smoke rolling off the flight deck and red flames along the sides from the island to the stern. Covering vessels provided rescue and fire-fighting assistance and shielded the stricken carrier from further attack. At 1524, another, much heavier explosion, possibly the bomb magazine, blew off the carrier's stern and with it the after flight deck. USS Birmingham (CL-62), alongside to fight fires, suffered heavy damage and casualties.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html)

Navaleye

26th Jul 2008, 03:50

and your analysis of US carrier ops means what? How many RN fleet carriers were disabled in the Pacific theatre? Answer: none.

RNGrommits

26th Jul 2008, 05:47

On JTFX and can confirm that there ain't that many UK DD/FFs around (unless you count an old stumpy 22 in Brazilian colours). We don't even warrant an oiler anymore and have to limp along at warpfactor economy to make sure we can even get across the pond and not dip below the min fuel levels! Still, at least the OAV went well and the exchange rate is good!

Navaleye

26th Jul 2008, 06:27

That'll be the Blue Oyster, I guess.....

How rude ! I don't think so.... Ms Navaleye would have something to say about that and she's here.....

Pontius Navigator

26th Jul 2008, 07:02

Modern Elmo,

We have spoken before. You leave hanging statements without conclusions - I know you do have a point to make except that you have not made it yet.

In answer to your leading question the answer is both No and Yes. I could stop there :}.

In the world wars the answer was of course No apart from Taranto where the RAF had, IIRC, torpedo bombers too. The difference was that the Royal Navy conceived a plan that others had not thought of. Carriers were only incidental.

And Yes. Today's air forces have global reach and could reach any part of the planet.

In your final list you omitted the Bismark. Although crippled by carrier borne aircraft she was finally located by land based MP.

The Repulse and POW were sunk by land-based aircraft. Attacks on the Scharnhorst were by land-based naval aircraft. The Glorious was sunk by land based aircraft.

This tale of woe underlines not the essential nature of carriers or indeed ships but their very vulnerability in littoral, in the widest sense, operations.

Obi Wan Russell

26th Jul 2008, 14:58

HMS Glorious was sunk by KMS Scharnhorst and KMS Gneisenhau which, if memory serves, could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'land based aircraft'. :=

Pontius Navigator

26th Jul 2008, 15:23

OWR, quite right. Sorry. Equally as a carrier she was vulnerable.

Navaleye

26th Jul 2008, 15:30

RE: HMS Glorious.

The primary cause of her loss was down to the fact that her CO was clinically insane and was hell bent on returning to Scapa to Courts Martial his Commander (air) for questioning his mental state. S & G were able to intercept due to breaking the RN cipher at the time. The whole episode was/is well covered up.

KMS was the WW1 imperial German navy prefix. In WW2 it was KM.

Squirrel 41

26th Jul 2008, 22:53

Cross posted from Sea Jet thread... sorry meant to ask this here to allow the Sea Jet thread to die....

Genuine question.....

Despite the fact that F-35 BF-1 has now flown conventionally, there are persistent rumours that it's going to canned by the USMC in favour of Dave-Cs.

So it was interesting to hear someone pontificating that though the UK prefers Dave-B, no decision has been made yet, and that we could yet end up with Dave-C, and CVF with Cats and Traps.

Q1. Is this true?

Q2. Given the ostensibly "convertible" nature of the CVF / PA2 design, how late can the decision be made to go for CV CTOL design and still meet the 2014 ISD of QEII?

(Appreciating that as IOC for UK Daves is unlikely to be before 2018, and that this would mean operating increasingly knackered Harriers off a CTOL CV minus ski jump).

Cheers

S41

Not_a_boffin

27th Jul 2008, 13:54

Squirrel 41

In answer to Q1 - I don't believe the final choice of Dave variant for UK has yet been made. It's all intimately tied in with the bring-back KPP, hence the ongoing effort to try and get STORVL to work.

As far as Q2 is concerned, the limiting factors are the long-lead times required for the cats and arresting engines, whether we buy US C13 & Mk 7, resurrect the BS6 and DA2 or bet the farm on EMALS/EARS. If its steam, then the delivery of a plant to go in the lower hull build modules would need to happen by mid-2010 at the latest. The upper deck bits are slightly less critical (though not by much) as those units will probably start construction early 2010.

Probably all too late for QE, but possible for PoW. As QE will be flying GR9 till 2018, one might suggest she completes with a ramp, and on service entry of QE goes for a first reserve/refit period to get her fitted out.

In any case, for Dave to hit the required IOC dates, they need to make the decision within about a year from now, no later.

Occasional Aviator

27th Jul 2008, 18:24

Double Zero wrote:

would the 'Black Hawk Down' incident have happened if there was a US or USMC carrier handy ?

I'm not sure this really goes anywhere. I have actually done some proper research on this action, looking at how it changed SOF's CSAR policy, not just seen the film, and I offer the following comments:

If a nation with eleven carrier battle-groups can't have a carrier 'handy', what hope do we have with one or two?

Secondly, I don't see how carrier-based air could help in recovering a captured pilot in an african city. Carriers are useful, but they're not magic.

Thirdly, why on earth would you need a carrier to support a unit that was operating out of an airport, and had been deployed and sustained almost exclusively by airlift?

Squirrel 41

27th Jul 2008, 20:39

N-A-B,

As ever, very many thanks for your insights. Your assessment of QEII sounds very sensible, esp if POW is delivered with Cats for the 2018(ish) Dave IOC. But time must be getting tight on PoW if Dave BF-1 is not scheduled to do transitions and STORVL before next spring.

Of course, if QEII is delivered with a skijump, you could probably embark every GR9/9A from Cott at once, of course..... at the expense of room for a cocktail party I suppose.

Thanks again!

S41

NURSE

27th Jul 2008, 23:15

I wonder how much disruption will be caused to the Carrier programme when money needs to be found for Trident update programme?

Obi Wan Russell

28th Jul 2008, 06:07

I wouldn't worry about the Trident replacement programme too much. With the cutbacks to the Astute programme the skills base for building submarines will have vanished and there will be no one left to make them (at anything approaching an affordable price). Unless we are going to buy 'off the shelf from the US'...:uhoh:

francophile69

28th Jul 2008, 07:38

How would cats be powered?

If steam what pressures and temperatures are required? Would L.P. sat steam be adequate, presumably from some form of existing waste heat recovery.

andyy

28th Jul 2008, 08:25

Work on the new reactor for the Vanguard replacement has already started. Even so we can't buy an N Warhead "off the shelf" for a Trident upgrade or any other N deterrent system due to the N proliferation treaty. The existing weapon has to be replaced and that will be very expensive (not least because experienced manpower is not easily available).

The expense of staying in the N club is still the biggest threat to CVF in my view. I just don't see how we can sustain both major proammes and I think that the next Govt will see that the books can't easily be balanced without cutting something.

LowObservable

28th Jul 2008, 16:19

Mr Boffin,

I'm sure you're mistaken. Gen. Davis said explicitly at Farnborough that all KPPs are being met or exceeded and that SRVL is merely a way to get extra bringback or to operate at higher ambient temperatures. I think he even said something about higher altitudes, in case one might want to cruise a CV on Lake Titicaca.

And he's a General, so he must be right.

(Google "sarcasm Betelguese")

Navaleye

29th Jul 2008, 16:49

Back on topic more or less. Just back from across the pond and their is quite some interest in the CVF project now that has made it off the drawing board. In essence its 1/3 of CVN in terms of price and manpower, but 50% of 1st night stealth strike and 60% of sortie generation thereafter. It is perceived as being very good value for money all round.

Double Zero

29th Jul 2008, 18:12

Occasional Aviator,

A few posts back you queried ( fair enough ) my hypothesis that a USMC carrier’s prescence may have helped in the ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident.

I was taking my info’ from the book – quite possibly the most meticulously detailed account of an action I’ve ever read.

I haven’t even bothered seeing the film, as we know what it will be like, and even if the makers intend to do the subject justice – rather than just go straight for Hollywood B.S, - there’s no way such an involved situation could be covered in the short scan of a film.

At first glance one may well ask ‘what good would carrier back-up do ?’ but I can’t help thinking it would have done a lot of good.

The U.S. infantry, inc. special forces, were faced by mobs of thousands of bloodthirsty, drugged up and well armed ‘civilians’, who automatically put their tribal differences aside when it became ‘kill an American day’ – ironically the U.S. where there to provide aid, which is why they didn’t have too much in the way of firepower – a Spectre gunship had been requested to be around for the operations, but refused as it might look too military…

Appache’s probably wouldn’t have been much use, as the air was thick with a plentiful supply of RPG’s.

The mob/s had plenty of assault rifles & heavy machine guns, grenades etc, and in their drugged state were willing to advance & be mown down – there were also women with baby in one arm, gun in the other, and more skilled pro’ killers mixed in with the crowds.

Eventually the soldiers had to do what they’d never dreamed of, and fire into the crowds.

Unthinkable as it may seem from one’s comfy chair, I can’t help thinking a few Harrier passes with cluster bombs, rockets or gun would have made a big difference.

As it was the ‘little bird’ helo’s made repeated courageous strafing runs through the night.

This was a great deal more than ‘rescuing a pilot’, whole U.S. vehicle convoys were close to being wiped out…
---

On another tack, someone mentioned that as the CVF is likely to carry the Harrier GR9 ( and 2+ please in my book ) for what even now seems a rather long ‘stop-gap’ period, “ why not fit a ramp for the Harriers for now ?”.

Well why not keep the ramp ( may need to make the angle shallower ) for when the F-35 eventually turns up ?

I know, to the astonishment of myself and ex-colleagues who worked with Harriers of all flavours, it seems the F-35B did not have STO in mind originally and needs extra software & deep thought – I’d still say the ‘B’ would be the best, most flexible option, and if it suits the USMC it suits our Marines & forces too.

Everyone gets very excited about EM catapults etc, either as a new toy or the cost, but how about a ramp ? Works for the Russians…

I presume the ‘C’ u/c could take it if it can take a catapult, while it would help the ‘B’ in the now traditional way – is there a thrust / acceleration snag here ? I’d have thought not…

My two pennarth’…

DZ

Arcanum

30th Jul 2008, 00:03

Double Zero, a Spectre was requested during mission planning, but was denied:

"A lack of political support for the Task Force Ranger mission, reflected in denial or removal of military support assets that would have aided the force, such as M1 Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams) tanks , AC-130 Spectre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130_Spectre) gunships, and M2 Bradley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle) APCs."

Battle of Mogadishu (1993) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29)

As OA mentioned, I'm not sure how much more help a carrier would have been as they were hardly short of air and ground assets - just not allowed to use them during planning.

BTW, the film 'Black Hawk Down' is not bad by Hollywood standards as Ridley Scott (the British director who also did Bladerunner and Alien) tried not to stray too far from what actually happened.

LowObservable

30th Jul 2008, 12:53

Nostrinian - I believe you're right on the auto-eject system. Not sure how it works but it may be connected to the flight data: that is, if the nose starts to go up or down too fast, indicating an engine failure causing a thrust imbalance, you are out of there.

The problem is that almost any major engine problem in powered lift mode - which is when it's most likely to occur, given that all systems are running at sustained full blast - is apt to cause the thrust at one end to decay faster than it does at the other, so you have both sink and rapid pitch movement, at low altitude and airspeed, and that does not take long to get the seat out of its safe envelope.

Interesting about the noise. It's not, I suspect, that JSF is that much louder than a Typhoon on full burner, but that the noise on landing is sustained. Max noise on a conventional jet is transient by definition.

Double Zero

30th Jul 2008, 14:51

Arcanunum,

Fair enough that Ridley Scott makes brilliant films ( haven't seen this one )

but I do think some heavy air firepower might have been rather handy - even main battle tanks like Abrams wouldn't have fancied the confined spaces & RPG's - if you have the facility, ( I don't ) - ask the chaps who were there on the ground at the time - and I don't need a crystal ball to guess what they'll say !

DZ

artyhug

30th Jul 2008, 15:34

Thats it I can't stand it anymore.

Double Zero, do you understand the terms PID and RoE?

If so then how the hell do you think fast air with cluster bombs, rockets and strafing passes would have been a conceivable option?

If not then may I humbly suggest you keep your armchair general opinions to yourself until you are better informed.

Oh and the get out ask the chaps who were there on the ground at the time - and I don't need a crystal ball to guess what they'll say !
doesn't wash either. I'm pretty sure they'd have been happy with tactical nukes or frickin sharks with lasers if it meant they'd get home but that doesn't imply that those who make the decisions would be.

FOG

30th Jul 2008, 16:03

Artyhug,

Actually the ROE requirements were more stringent in Fallujah 04 than Mog and FW air was employed along with RCAS in Fallujah.

This is not to say that someone up the chain may not have called off any/all FW strikes as was done on say the O’Grady Exfil.

Double zero has missed the mark on the ability of armor to operate in built up areas, it has been done successfully and to very good effect.

S/F, FOG

Archimedes

30th Jul 2008, 16:09

I'd imagine the chaps on the ground would be saying something along the lines of 'Perhaps if we'd been more proportionate, we wouldn't still be being pursued for a war crimes trial' had fast air been used in the way suggested...

00 - several problems, not least in terms of ROE. Using the AV-8B as you suggest - or any other fast jet (disclaimer - yes, I know someone will be along shortly to say 'Harrier? Fast?') - in 1993 to provide urban CAS would've been extremely difficult in the environment the US troops were operating; use of CBU would have been regarded as a wildly disproportionate use of force, particularly given the casualties that could've been caused amongst non-combatants.

If air support was needed, then the AC-130 was much better suited to the task. AV-8B in 1993 didn't have the capability to do urban CAS in the way it can today, and of the carrier based platforms of that era, only the A-6 would've perhaps have been able to deliver the effects that the ROE would have permitted.

Even using GBU-12 would've been an issue (see current open source material on how it can be an issue today and the solutions pursued by the US to ameliorate this) - CBUs and rockets would've been right out. Conversely, the relative accuracy provided by the AC-130's weapon systems - even the 105mm would have been in with a chance of getting the LEGAD's tick in the box (see ref above to ROE at Fallujah which were more stringent than those in force in Somalia in 93)- would've been a much better and possibly the only practical solution. Which was, of course, why General Garrison and his team requested them in the first place.

artyhug

30th Jul 2008, 16:12

FOG

Point taken, perhaps in my haste I didn't express myself that clearly. I was attempting to highlight not so much the inability for fast air to be used but the utter lack of appreciation of unguided weapon effects in a urban theatre.

FOG

30th Jul 2008, 16:24

Archimedes,

I doubt the guys on the ground would be worried much about war crimes vis-à-vis air employment.

The day attack Harrier was arguably the most accurate iron bomber of the bunch, quite capable of employing mk82 class weapons. Even the A-6 bubbas were impressed at the level of accuracy achieved by the day attack Harriers; though unimpressed by load, range, single engine, etc. Mix in the coordination with the Cobras and you have a very effective mix.

This is assuming that this hadn’t turned into an USA/SOCOM show.

S/F, FOG

FOG

30th Jul 2008, 16:30

Arty,

Understood. As I pointed out to Archimedes above the day attack is very accurate (though obviously not with CBU or thermal type munitions) and it would be from an ARG.

From a CVN the USN just wasn’t up to speed on CAS at the time so what type of CAS from a CVN would have been an acceptable risk? Talking increased chances of intramural also.

S/F, FOG

Double Zero

30th Jul 2008, 21:14

Artyhug,

well I can't stand it anymore either; exactly how many miles were you away while this was hapenning ?

I'm not a soldier, in fact I'm a UK civilian who has worked alongside the military. but if I was 'in the field' would have hoped for backup - do you know what it is to deny support for people dying in front of you ?

I do, and am not even military.

As I said at the beginning of my last post, - I was NOT involved n the incidident - what became the unthinkable became the only way to survive - there comes a certain point where one says " sod the ROE, the opposition have, we need to survive ! "

Harrier strikes - being a lot less likely to take RPG's - would have fairly certainly 'discouraged' the mobs.

This might sound uncivilised and using superior weaponry on 'poor folk' - but remember the U.S. went in with 'aid' in mind, and were met by drug-high mobs including women with a baby under one arm, AK-47 or M-16 under the other.

As to evidence aftrerwards to justify it, well the Harrier has a small, pretty useless for these purposes video pilot display recorder, but that combined with the overhead a/c performing supposed C&C & radio chat between aircraft & ground vehicles would be pretty convincing...

Those guys took enough pounding, which I don't know if I could endure - hope so, who knows ?

Without 20/20 hindsighters saying they couldn't have done with more backup !

Archimedes

30th Jul 2008, 22:22

00 - with respect, you appear to be suggesting that the US Army would have been happy to have seen the perpetrating of what would appear to be prima facie war crimes... Just because the US went in on a humanitarian mission and found local opposition far greater than anticipated does not justify using CBU against civilians and non-combatants, of whom there were more than a fair few in close proximity to the fighting.

The destruction of evidence, or its lack thereof, would've been a political disaster for the US and the US armed forces, not least since the US had capabilities that would have been just as likely, if not more so, to achieve the desired effect of supporting the troops on the ground.

Those of us disagreeing with your perspective are not saying that the Rangers and 10th MD didn't need support; we're saying that your projected solution would have been vastly counter-productive not least since a much better option existed in the form of the assets requested by, but denied to, the US commanders who appreciated the capabilities these assets offered in the sort of environment in which they were operating.

This is in real danger of taking us waaay off thread, though, so might I respectfully suggest that it might be time to agree to differ on the hypothetical merits or otherwise of the use of AV-8Bs or other CV-based assets 15 years ago?

NURSE

31st Jul 2008, 09:47

Blackhawk op down from what i have read seen fell apart because of a Mix of US/SOF arrogance and lack of political support. Added to a measure of poor command and control and Mission creep.

I was interested to see the mention of the russian carriers with the ramps has this been effective in launching conventonal aircraft?
And would the length of the flight deck on the new carrier add or detract from GR9 performance in the early years?

SSSETOWTF

31st Jul 2008, 22:38

Double Zero,

I'm not sure that I'm reading your posts correctly, so forgive me if I'm answering a question that you're not asking. But the first carrier definitely will have a ramp. It should do nicely for the Harriers until F-35 arrives. F-35B will detect from pitch rate etc that the aircraft is travelling up a ramp and the control laws react accordingly to maximise aircraft performance. A good deal of work has gone into this already, including ramp optimization and control law work in the simulators.

Nostrinian,

The jet does have auto-eject. The Russians have used a system based on very similar principles in their Yak-38 for years. It's a hard fact of life that when you have a vertical lift system that has two large thrust centres a relatively long way from the CG, if one of them fails you get a huge pitching moment. If the pilot isn't pulling the handle in under a second, he's toast. So you need an auto-eject system. The question of whether or not the crashing aircraft (with or without a pilot in) injures people on deck is no different from legacy.

It's another sad fact of life that if you want an aircraft to pump out 40 000lb of thrust, it's going to be loud - find me an engine of that class that isn't.

Low Observable,

I believe Gen Davis is quite correct (as you'd expect from a man who's in charge of a programme worth several billion dollars). The aircraft is meeting or on track to meet all it's Key Performance Parameters, which is why SRVL is a UK programme - because our bringback requirement (Key User Requirement) is different (i.e. more demanding). It all comes down to what you call a 'hot day'. But the US are taking an interest in it because it has other benefits such as perhaps being easier to integrate with F-35C traffic patterns, future-proofing for weight growth etc.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Modern Elmo

1st Aug 2008, 01:28

PPrunespeople, do you agree or disagree with this attitude? It might apply to aircraft carriers as well as littoral combat ships or boats:

"I look at the Streetfighter concept and worry that we are saying, 'It's OK to lose ships,' " says Vice Adm. Michael Mullen, commander of the U.S. 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, Va."

... proposed by Adm. Cebrowski and Wayne Hughes as you might recall from here:

...Streetfighters would be cheap -- one design would cost only about $70 million a ship, compared with as much as $1 billion for a new destroyer-- the Navy would be able to buy hundreds for the price of one 10-ship carrier battle group. The ships would operate along crowded coastal waters, hiding in coves and springing out to destroy enemy subs, hunt down mines and disrupt enemy missiles that could more easily target larger, slower ships.

After a few days or weeks of heavy fighting, the bigger ships would move in and take over the fight. Some Streetfighters would be lost, and some sailors would die. Streetfighters must be designed to lose," Capt. Hughes wrote at the time. "If the ships become too costly or too heavily manned, commanders will be unwilling to put them at risk."

Cebrowski fought the funding issue. And it's easy to see why you get the [ gold-plated, too big, and over budget -- Elmo ] LCS when you wanted something else, considering -

Some top Navy commanders have grave doubts. "I look at the Streetfighter concept and worry that we are saying, 'It's OK to lose ships,' " says Vice Adm. Michael Mullen, commander of the U.S. 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, Va.

After all, there is no "littoral combat czar" to fight the big haze gray boys, and the air and sub mafias. It's like mine warfare only worse.
So give me a few M-80s and let me have young fire breathers learn to use them - creatively.

Eagle1 | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 6:40 pm | #
http://www.eaglespeak.us/2008/07/real-littoral-combat-ship-goes-to-sea.html (http://www.eaglespeak.us/2008/07/real-littoral-combat-ship-goes-to-sea.html)

Wader2

1st Aug 2008, 11:47

ME,

Your extract might use English words but the sense is hard to define if you haven't been following the story.

Looking at your link what you appear to have is a mission specific vessel.

would operate along crowded coastal waters, hiding in coves and springing out

Plenty of crowded coastal water ways but coves? There are many coasts that do not have coves and are exposed to onshore weather. This was the preserve of coastal forces in WW2, forces such as PT boats, MTBs, MGBs etc. While some MGBs operated successfully in contested waters of the Adriatic and Aegean predominantly they need secure bases on friendly shores. This makes them largely a defensive asset as opposed to the combat reach of blue water vessels.

The Swedish Navy developed a stealth craft 15 years ago. It was barely visible from 2 miles away in good visibility and would have been ideal for their littoral operations.

A parallel would be the long range bomber or fighter/bomber - short range fighter battle. The former needs size and fuel load to reach the enemy and thus sacrifices speed and manoeuvreability, the latter is 'cheap' and agile. If we eschew the heavy metal then neither side would have the reach to engage each other. A carrier however does just that; it enables the delivery of agile airpower to meet an agile enemy.

Not sure though what attitude you are asking us to consider.

Wader2

1st Aug 2008, 11:52

Elmo, and another thing, FFS post the bl**dy link and not the whole bl**dy article.

Copy small extracts by all means so that you message can stand alone but we can read the link if so inclined. To post the whole or major part of an article is agin the rules - copyright and all that!

airship

1st Aug 2008, 12:18

I've never understood why we didn't just go ahead and contract whoever built the French CDG to build us 2 new (and why not?) identical carriers down to the nuclear propulsion and flight-deck...?! We could have insisted that all switches be labelled in English as well as French. We could have insisted that construction would be in one or more UK shipyards. We could have insisted on a fixed-price contract (leaving the froggie government to take any eventual hits) unlike the present arrangement where the final cost undoubtedly doubles or triples what was projected before entry into service. The French already went through a great deal of time and expense before ending up with what is now a perfectly-serviceable carrier (and one that the UK would be very pleased to possess, especially if it came with the wine cellar)...?!

Yours humbly, (Brit living in FR since 1991) and with good relations with froggies...

airship.

hulahoop7

1st Aug 2008, 14:05

One answer to that. If it is so good, why did the froggies pay money up front to look at and use the RNs CVF design?

Whilst a very good ship, the CdG is expensive to build and run (requiring a 24 hour nuclear watch system) and is compromised because it utilises submarine reactors on a surface ship. It is also too small.

Also don't believe all this bull about the CVF costing more that a US CVN.

It's a very big IF, but IF this project is managed well and comes in on budget the UK will have done very well thankyou very much.

Navaleye

1st Aug 2008, 14:11

...and. Even the latest US CVN designs have a crew size more than double that of a CVF. The MN is downsizing and could not crew a sip that size without chopping more its surface fleet.

andyy

1st Aug 2008, 15:03

I thought that the FN had decided that CDG was too small, hence interest in CVF. That said, I am not sure why using several submarine reactors is a bad thing - I think (can't be bothered to check!) that the early US CVNs (eg Enterprise) were powered by up to 8 submarine sized reactors. Might not be a bad idea as at least we could share development costs with the submarine programme (Vanguard and Astute replacements) and they would provide steam for the cats.

Modern Elmo

1st Aug 2008, 15:17

I was talking about this attitude in regard to aircraft carriers:

"I look at the Streetfighter concept and worry that we are saying, 'It's OK to lose ships,' " says Vice Adm. Michael Mullen, commander of the U.S. 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, Va."

That's probably the flag rank USN's real attitude about their aircraft carriers: must keep the fleet in being, so keep the CVN's out of harm's way. Of course the RN would never think like that.

Yes, I agree that the talk about littoral combat vessels lurking in coves before attacking and whatnot is too romantic and Hollywood-ish.

airship

1st Aug 2008, 15:36

(requiring a 24 hour nuclear watch system) I'm somewhat confused. Are there current RN warships that get away without a 24/24 engineering watch system?! Or do you really believe that the French crew on the CDG have 6-hour long siestas whilst the reactors happily hummmmmmmm away to the tune of la Marseillaise....?! :}

Navaleye

1st Aug 2008, 15:53

The French do not have an equivalent to a Core H reactor hence the regular refueling schedule for for the C de G. Yes it is too small, even the MN recognise that and it has had various b its bolted on to remedy that. It does have some interesting features such as its anti-roll mechanism, but the bottom line is its still too small. A CVF offers much more flexibility.

ORAC

1st Aug 2008, 16:17

hulahoop7: "It's a very big IF, but IF this project is managed well and comes in on budget the UK will have done very well thank you very much."

ORAC: "Indeed, especially if we can get Thor and the other aliens from Stargate SG1 to help run the programme."

hulahoop7: "Now you're being bloody ridiculous!!"

ORAC: "True, but you started it...."

Double Zero

1st Aug 2008, 16:34

" other aliens from SG-1 " -

For christ's sake not the gou'ld - I've already met them, they disguise themselves as accountants.

ORAC

1st Aug 2008, 16:38

I thought they were the Wraith? :suspect:

chris_tivver

1st Aug 2008, 16:43

CVF through life cost is much less than a CVN to the extent that some questions were being asked in US about why not have x CVFs instead of 1 CVN. You would get more capability and more flexibility.

Now govt bungling has made it worse but CVF is still much cheaper than CVN. Some aspects will even be better (later design so newer technology which cannot always be easily retro-fitted),

CDG doesn't meet a lot of reqts and as said French are moving towards CVF concept.

LowObservable

1st Aug 2008, 18:13

SSSETOWTF

Informative reply. Although I'm surprised that there's a significant difference between the RN and Marine "standard day". Other things being equal, US and UK ships all operate at sea level, and we're pretty much in agreement about where the world's trouble spots are likely to be (and they tend to be warmer than Scunthorpe in October).

Also, I'm sure that a Typhoon in full burner is just as loud as a JSF - but the difference is that it doesn't hang around making that kind of noise.

Modern Elmo

7th Aug 2008, 03:14

JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse

Aug 1, 2008

Bill Sweetman

( A year or so ago, Mr. Sweetman said in his Aviation Week blog that he reads PPrune. So hi there, Bill. -- Elmo )

Within a year, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter team expects to make firm offers to its eight partner nations: the U.K., Italy, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Turkey. In exchange for a commitment by all eight to aircraft numbers and delivery dates, they will get a firm price, several years before that would normally be possible under U.S. procurement rules.

Commonality has diminished during the development of JSF. The F-35C has a takeoff weight of 70,000 lb.—almost as heavy as an F-14D—and a 668-sq.-ft. wing.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN CONCEPT
..

Those commitments will be backed up by sanctions. “Partners who do not buy according to the program of record will cover the costs incurred by other partners,” says the Program Office director, Maj. Gen. Charles Davis.

Davis says the final price is the subject of intense discussions within the team, but numbers in the $58-63-million realm—flyaway prices in current dollars—have been mentioned. Given that total acquisition unit costs in export sales tend to be about twice the flyaway cost, this places the JSF unit cost close to that of Typhoon.

The partners should be clear about what they are getting for the money. At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.”

The F-35 is not optimized for air-to-air combat. JSF is neither fast nor agile enough to choose whether to shoot or scoot against an adversary like the Su-30. It either carries a maximum of four AIM-120 missiles—the capability is little publicized, although Davis confirms that it will be part of the systems development and demonstration program—or operates with compromised stealth. (A reduced-signature pylon for the outboard wing stations, designed to carry AIM-9X or Asraam missiles, is being developed.) Success in air combat depends on stealth, but although the F-35 should detect targets at long range before being detected, it will have to close to shorter distances to achieve an acceptable kill probability with the AIM-120C7, particularly against an agile target using jamming and decoys. The U.S. acknowledged this by developing the AIM-120D, designed to be compatible with new active electronically scanned array radars, but it will not be available for export in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, there is no longer any serious doubt that not all F-35s will be equal in stealth. Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.”

...

Doors, serrated and edge-treated to maintain stealth, open so the F-35B’s powered lift system can operate.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN

Third, U.S. numbers are shaky. Senior Air Force officers have stated that the service can afford only 48 JSFs per year rather than the 80 that the current program envisions, unless it gets more topline funding in the defense budget. The Navy and Marine Corps told the Government Accountability Office that they expect to buy 35 JSFs per year, versus 50 in the current plan. Davis says the JSF office “is waiting for the POM (program objective memorandum) process to see those numbers get adjusted.”

...

More important, though, is the Stovl (short takeoff and vertical landing) testing of the F-35B, which is, by Davis’s count, three months behind schedule. In the first quarter of 2009, the F-35B will start a series of 20 sorties at Fort Worth, Tex., in which the jet progressively slows down, leading to a slow landing. BF-1 will then be ferried to the Navy’s flight-test center at Patuxent River, Md., for tests leading to a vertical landing. The time*scale for that is not certain, but a vertical landing doesn’t look likely until well into the second quarter.

The U.K. has voiced concerns about vertical landings. Added to F-35B testing under a U.K. initiative is a new flight mode, shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL), in which the aircraft approaches the ship with about 60 kt. airspeed and 25 kt. wind-over-deck—the maximum design speed of the Royal Navy’s new carriers (see story, p. 51)—for a 35-kt. relative deck speed. Davis characterizes SRVL as a means to improve hot-day performance. The U.K. National Audit Office, in a November 2007 report, linked the move to SRVL to “weight challenges and propulsion integration issues.” (( WWII Essex class CV's claimed 33 knots max. -- Elmo )

SRVL trials were carried out in May 2007, using the fly-by-wire Harrier operated by Qinetiq on the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. Challenges include the fact that the aircraft has to stop using wheelbrakes alone—37,000 lb. of aircraft at 35 kt. represents a lot of energy—on a deck that will likely be wet. A classic “bolter” will not be possible because power has to be reduced on touchdown to put the airplane’s weight on its wheels.

Vertical landing tests depend on the successful resolution of problems with the low-pressure turbine of the F135 engine, whose unusually large blades are designed to deliver power to the lift fan. A number of changes have been implemented, and tests continue to pin down the exact combination of circumstances where failures occur.

Two milestones are coming up: further analysis should lead to a limited clearance of the existing engine for inflight vectoring in October; and a modified, fully cleared engine should be ready to fly by late 2008.

JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse | AVIATION WEEK (http://aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTIJSF.xml&headline=JSF%20Offic) e%20Makes%20Buyers%20an%20Offer%20They%20Cannot%20Refuse

Double Zero

7th Aug 2008, 03:48

Elmo,

For my part thanks, that is an informative & illuminating post.

The RVL at 60kts + full ship speed is interesting, if depressing, but then again the Harrier / P1127 could barely lift itself with a stripped airframe in early days...

Anything which can carry 4 x AMRAAM on day 1, then precision A-G + A-A weapons on day 2, sounds good to me.

The big question is, WHEN ?!

DZ

Jetex Jim

7th Aug 2008, 04:21

So, in essence then.
The JSF is stealthy, unless you want aircombat capability, or can get the 120D missile, (not for export).

It's carrier capable, unless you want to land back on.

Things are a little heavier than everybody had hoped.

And even the U.S. is growing a little cool towards it.

Third, U.S. numbers are shaky. Senior Air Force officers have stated that the service can afford only 48 JSFs per year rather than the 80 that the current program envisions, unless it gets more topline funding in the defense budget. The Navy and Marine Corps told the Government Accountability Office that they expect to buy 35 JSFs per year, versus 50 in the current plan. Davis says the JSF office “is waiting for the POM (program objective memorandum) process to see those numbers get adjusted.”

But aside from that, the program's going well.

GreenKnight121

7th Aug 2008, 16:45

The US military is NOT "growing cool" towards the F-35, it is that they are trying to lay the groundwork in the politician's minds (such as they are) that the program is still affordable, so that if Obama is elected president, and the Democrats still control both houses of Congress, there won't be an outright cancellation of the program as being "unnecessary" (the F/A-18E, and F-15/16 & small numbers of F-22 are good enough for "purely defensive purposes", and the Demos won't venture into hostile territory for any non-UN reason).

The F-35 is needed in numbers for "offensive" missions, the thought of which sends convulsions of horror through the likely budget-masters, so the services are beginning their campaign to preserve some F-35 acquisitions right now.

The Helpful Stacker

7th Aug 2008, 18:31

Is it time to dust off the P.1154 plans yet?

pr00ne

7th Aug 2008, 21:26

The Helpful Stacker,

It didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.

Plenum chamber afterburner? No way hosay..........

Jackonicko

7th Aug 2008, 22:33

Hosay?

José, surely, Shirley?

pr00ne

7th Aug 2008, 23:14

Jackonicko,

I've told you before, don't call me Shirley.

:ok:

SSSETOWTF

7th Aug 2008, 23:19

Jetex Jim,

I don't know whether to be exasperated or amused by the way you've interpreted Bill Sweetman's article.

Are you saying that an aircraft that can stealthily approach enemy fighters and put 4 AIM-120C7s into them doesn't have an air combat capability??? Can I have some of what you're smoking? I'm sure the enemy pilot's last words won't be 'well if you didn't kill me with an AIM-120D, it doesn't count'.

What part of being able to take-off and land from a carrier makes it not carrier capable??? If you apply the more demanding UK criteria of what a 'hot day' is, then you might have to do an SRVL to bring aboard your full warload and several thousand lb of fuel. So it's not an issue for training, it's not an issue in high-intensity ops when you're expending your ordnance, and you only have to SRVL on a really hot, really low pressure day if you want/need to hold a load of diversion fuel. So what's your beef with the carrier capability? Sounds as good as an F-18C or AV-8B, if not significantly better, to me.

The jet may be a bit heavier than we hoped, but I can assure you that people at Lockheed haven't just thrown their hands up in the air and given up on finding ways to trim the last few pounds of excess off the airframe.

And if you think that the US only being able to afford to buy 83 a year for their Forces, for the next 25+ years to build up a fleet of 2500 airframes is 'going a little cool', I can't tell you how much I wish the UK would 'go a little cool' on it.

If you compare the JSF programme to our most recent success, the Typhoon, there are a couple of points to make. Two years ago the first flight for BF-1 was set as May/June 08. It made that deadline and is running about 3 months behind due to the engine snag. Well, compared to Typhoon, that means we've got another 51 months of slip before we match them. Typhoon costs went from £7 billion to £20billion to £'we can't tell you how many for commercial sensitivity' billion. JSF has an extremely long way to go to match that kind of inflation. And probably most important of all is that when you get your first Sqn of Block III F-35s, they'll be full-up air-air and air-ground aircraft. You won't have to wait 5 years post-delivery for one of them to drop one bomb that's being spiked by another aircraft type to declare themselves multi-role. Sales pitch off now.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Double Zero

7th Aug 2008, 23:42

Proone,

While I agree the P1154 seems a dodgy bet in retrospect, I believe the Plenum Chamber Burning ( I presume you mention 'afterburner' as a sort of crude analogy ) BS100 engine was successfully run; as was the PCB modified Pegasus in a test-rig mounted Harrier airframe.

When I sent photo's of both to an enquiring engine apprentice with the Navy, who'd asked if PCB had ever been tried, even his instructors were stunned & had never heard of the projects !

The rather potent looking Yak 141 'Freestyle' had it too, and I've heard from an American Test Pilot who got to fly the simulator - he didn't expand on how the occasion arose, but did say he liked it a lot and his report was ' of interest to the intelligence community '...Interestingly, that had F-35 style 2-lever operation - stick & throttle, no nozzle lever - and it seems a shame ( or a relief ) that the project failed through funding as the Soviet Union caved in.

The big problem with PCB is / was the terrific heat & erosion to whatever surface the aircraft was operating from.

The P1154 is long gone, but the Kingston design office had some very attractive proposals for the late 1980's P1216 - see the website by Michael Pryce, who has researched very deeply & thoroughly into past, present & above all else FUTURE VSTOL - dial in the name of a present VSTOL aircraft beginning with 'H' on google.

Harry Peg

8th Aug 2008, 00:44

RVLs onto carriers.....there is a famous lesson about wheels and re-inventing...

In 1971, Sir Ken Hayr led 1(F) Sqn onto HMS Ark Royal for the first Harrier deployment. They planned to arrive, do the mandatory beat-up, and then conduct a 'rolling vertical touch down at 45kts on the back of the carrier.' On applying the brakes, Sir Ken slid sideways, thankfully away from the edge, and just managed to stop before clattering into the parked aircraft on the front right of the deck. The order to the rest of the Sqn was 'VL's from now on!'

If a VSTOL aircraft is too heavy, I think they have invented a new system called cats and traps.....(that doesn't need a lift fan and leaves more room for fuel and bombs....hmmm!)

:ugh:

SSSETOWTF

8th Aug 2008, 00:53

Harry Peg,

So one guy tried it once without putting very much thought into it and it didn't work so we should never ever re-evaluate the idea? Do you not give any of the dozens and dozens of very smart scientists and engineers that are looking at SRVL any credit at all? Do you think they might have considered the odd failure case and assumed the deck will be wet, covered in fuel, and pitching in sea state 6 etc? Or do you think they plucked the number 35kts out of their collective backside?

Or do you and Sir Ken from 1971 know best?

I know where my money is.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Modern Elmo

8th Aug 2008, 01:13

Maybe you fellows take Bill Sweetman's writing a bit too seriously.

Compare this sentence: "Commonality has diminished during the development of JSF. " to this pronouncement, emitted in 1995: "At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft ( aircraft in the singular -- Elmo) as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.” Repeat, year 1995.

"... The F-35 is not optimized for air-to-air combat. JSF is neither fast nor agile enough to choose whether to shoot or scoot against an adversary like the Su-30. ..." Can you cite any evidence for that, Bill? Are you referring to to the conventional takeoff model, the USN version, the STOVL F-35, or all three? Remember, commonality has diminished.

Furthermore, Bill, you persist in implicitly defining air-to-air combat as dosgfighting. That's not the whole picture.

My comments tonight:

(1) All three versions of the F-35 will go into production.

(2) Some of the USN F-35's will have back seats for NFO's. So single engine, two seats for some.

(3) The STOVL version will be as good a STOVL fighter as anyone can make in the early 21st century.

(4) In spite of (3), it is a mistake to center Britains' aircraft carrier program on this one type of warplane with no competitor in its category.

(5) I 'm not sure that aircraft carriers are the UK's top military hardware priority, whether or not the proposed aircraft carriers have catapults and arrester gear.

Jetex Jim

8th Aug 2008, 04:16

Trust us, we are the experts, hey SSSETOWTF?
So one guy tried it once without putting very much thought into it and it didn't work so we should never ever re-evaluate the idea? Do you not give any of the dozens and dozens of very smart scientists and engineers that are looking at SRVL any credit at all? Do you think they might have considered the odd failure case and assumed the deck will be wet, covered in fuel, and pitching in sea state 6 etc? Or do you think they plucked the number 35kts out of their collective backside?

Here's how Bill Sweetman put it last year.Ares: A Defense Technology Blog: F-35B Challenges (http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/04/f35b_challenges.html)

Some observers, however, have pointed out that SRVL has inherent risks. How fast "rolling" might be is not clear, but on take-off the F-35B is going more than 80 knots before it gets enough wing lift to make a difference. The Royal Navy's new carriers will not be fast ships, so the 15-ton JSF would probably be touching down with 40 knots or more of relative velocity, nose-up to generate lift, with the engine winding down, and with only the wheel brakes to stop. Any problems, and there is no chance of a traditional carrier-type "bolter" – that it, shooting off the front of the deck at full power and trying again – because the thrust is pointing the wrong way.

the SRVL project is part of "intensive program action" to meet the F-35B's bring-back weight goal, which is "at risk" because of "weight challenges and propulsion system integration issues"....

...All the easy (and even moderately difficult) ways to cut weight out of the F-35B have been done in the course of fixing the 2004 weight gain. Fuel reserves on landing have been pared to a minimum. The engine is giving its best – at service entry, the stress of vertical landings will already reduce the engine's life. Moreover, running the jet hotter is not an easy option. The JSF is a stealthy aircraft and consequently dumps a minimum of heat overboard, in order to reduce its infra-red signature. Instead, it uses its fuel as a heat-sink (as the F-22 does) but reducing the fuel reserve means that there's less cooling capacity. Hence the interest in SRVL

Now a couple of post back.
The big problem with PCB is / was the terrific heat & erosion to whatever surface the aircraft was operating from.

Which makes me wonder, no chance that terrific heat & erosion might also be an issue with SRVL is there? But that wouldn't really be a BAE problem, unless they were involved with building the carriers, I suppose:ooh:

Now Elmo says3) The STOVL version will be as good a STOVL fighter as anyone can make in the early 21st century.
(4) In spite of (3), it is a mistake to center Britains' aircraft carrier program on this one type of warplane with no competitor in its category.

Come on now, isn't STOVL JSF just an excuse to give BAE another little job creation work package?

Shades of the Spey Phanton hey? I seem to recall that went a 'little' over as well.

Jetex Jim

8th Aug 2008, 05:02

Remembering the Spey Phantom

tornadoken writes that the Spey Phantom was predicated by the ‘Bolter’ performance of the Phantom, (Bolter – missed arrester wire go-around). The decks of HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal being smaller than the US carriers that the USN were operating Phantoms from. (In fact USN F4s were flown on and off the 1970 era Ark Royal). However it does appear that the F-4C would have been compatible with the larger CVA01 class, but these boats were cancelled, estimated cost at time of cancellation £100m each.

52 F4K were ordered, for Ark Royal and for Eagle. In the event only the Ark got the F4K, the rest of the navy order went straight to equip 43 Squadron at Leuchars.

Cost of std, F4 say £1.2m apiece, Spey Phantom £3m each.
52 Std model at £3m minus 52 at £1.2m (156 –62.4 = 93.6) the UK paid £93.6m more for 52 Spey F4K

Just a little short of the CVA01 cost.

If we take in to account the 1965 Defence White paper which states that the RAF Phantoms were to be swing role and would operate from land and the RN carriers!!! :uhoh:
See: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm)

For the same numbers with the F4M we see for: 118 aircraft 354-141.6 = 212
UK paid £212m extra for its 118 Spey F4M. Or two more carriers and lots of ship yard jobs.

So has the UK aircraft industry been feather bedded by government defence spending (at the expense of other areas) or what?

SSSETOWTF

8th Aug 2008, 16:53

Jetex,

Last time I checked Bill Sweetman was a journalist / aviation author (and usually known for writing mass-market trite of little technical rigour - in my opinion), not an engineer, scientist or test pilot involved in the F-35 programme.

His figure for the speed at which wing lift will make a difference is woefully wrong, his assumption of touch down speed is wrong, his assumptions of the touchdown conditions are wrong, but he did manage to guess right that you'll have brakes to stop you with. Given his great knowledge and expertees, he doesn't say why someone would ever want or need to bolter - I'd be interested to hear what they are (how many Harrier mates have ever had to 'bolter' from an RVL, and if so, why?).

SRVL is still a UK only investigation/development, so you'd be hard-pushed to call 'intensive program action'. You point-blank can't SRVL onto an LHD/LHA as the deck's too small.

He must be very smart though to figure out that running an engine at or near full power will reduce the engine life. You can safely say that about any engine for goodness sakes. Clearly though this will be news to Pratt & Whitney and they won't have thought of it. Oh hang on, I think they might have designed an engine or two before. They might have even read the specification that they're designing the F135 to that requires thousands of hours of engine life.

I give up though, in future I concur that we should let Bill Sweetman and the PPrune cynics club design our airplanes, engines and operating procedures as they know best.

Toodle pip,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Double Zero

8th Aug 2008, 17:27

Not_a_boffin

8th Aug 2008, 18:38

SSSETOWTF

Mr Sweetman is clearly not on your Xmas card list, but he does make the valid point that once you hit the deck, you'd better wind down the thrust sharpish and hit the brakes - which leaves you nowhere to go in the event of "something" going awry. Not good on a shortish land field, a bit tricky one might surmise on a 250m-ish (or less depending on glideslope and whether you get to use the full deck length) narrow deck stuffed with armed and fuelled a/c in very close proximity.

I don't think anyone disagrees that RVL as a technique can increase bringback on Dave B. The question is whether it can be used operationally, with substantial recoveries. One would suspect that using the technique might increase the recovery interval, meaning more a/c in the pattern for longer, with consequent impact on fuel margins etc (negating bringback benefit?) Although its only "supposed" to be used in extremes - the place where those extremes occur is just where one is likely to want to use CVF + Dave and all the bells and whistles.

The thing that is worrying is the almost unseemly manner in which the RVL trials are being thought of as "the fix", rather than a promising experimental technique.

glad rag

8th Aug 2008, 19:04

............ yes a very valid point indeed.

No point regurgitating the arguments as we all would be pointed to a certain thread (again) but this ac is turning into a pile of poo by the minute!

Those aircraft supplied to the UK will NEVER be a match operationally to their American brethren.

The best bit is those building it will never have to fly it onto a deck, those here supporting it will never have to fail in their mission to support their fellow sailors/marines!!

BIN IT!!

SSSETOWTF

8th Aug 2008, 19:25

Not a boffin,

I've got nothing personal against Mr Sweetman, and have a number of his books. But in the same way that I cringe every time John Nichols is wheeled out as an 'aviation expert', I'm afraid my natural inclination is to take Mr Sweetman's utterings with a large sack of salt. He does not work anywhere near the coal face where hard facts and findings are known about.

But my question still stands - what is this hypothetical 'something' that's going to make you want to bolter? If you have a hydraulic or brake issue then you'll jettison whatever you need to and get to VL weight. In 10 years of flying Harriers I don't recall ever hearing of someone 'boltering' an RVL, and that's with a 50kt+ groundspeed touchdown (roughly twice the energy of a 35kt touchdown). About the only thing that I can think of would be an instantaneous catastrophic failure of both brakes at the moment of touchdown. And the risk of that is probably down well below the 10E-6 threshold that we lose sleep over.

I'm not sure that I see the difference between what's a fix and what's a promising experimental technique. If SRVL can be shown to work safely and without any other operational limitations (such as the ATC one you mention - don't know anything about that I'm afraid) then it can't be a bad thing. But it is only one string of the bow. We might yet be able to get P&W to give us more thrust from the F135, the F136 is very promising about being able to generate a lot more thrust, more weight might be trimmed from the aircraft etc. There are a lot of what-ifs and mights, but that's what happens when you're in the very early stages of flight testing a 5th generation aircraft.

It's rather frustrating though when you are relatively close to the programme to see ill-informed comment from the likes of Sweetman forecasting nothing but doom and gloom, based on nothing more than a journo's mood that day, or who bought him lunch - even more so when other people then start quoting it as gospel.

glad rag,

Don't know what you're smoking old chum, but what other military aircraft in history has been flown by the people that built it? It's quite the norm for pilots to fly aircraft and engineers to build them. And I really don't follow your logical leap from a discussion about a technique to land a heavy aircraft on a carrier to a question of operational effectiveness for an AESA-equipped, extremely stealthy weapon system. Can you fill in the gap a bit for me?

I note though that you've conducted an in-depth analysis of 21st century surface-air and air-air threats and compared the detectability of a wide selection of modern air platforms to the relevant emitter frequencies and concluded that the best way for us to provide air support to our sailors and marines is to bin F-35. What are you proposing instead? Nothing? Prayers? Or smoking drugs for everyone?

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

GreenKnight121

9th Aug 2008, 05:19

........... yes a very valid point indeed.

No point regurgitating the arguments as we all would be pointed to a certain thread (again) but this ac is turning into a pile of poo by the minute!

Those aircraft supplied to the UK will NEVER be a match operationally to their American brethren.

The best bit is those building it will never have to fly it onto a deck, those here supporting it will never have to fail in their mission to support their fellow sailors/marines!!

BIN IT!!

What are you smoking?

The USMC will CERTAINLY fly the F-35B onto and off of smaller flat-decked ships than the RN will... without a ski ramp, too! Don't they count?

The RN/RAF's F-35Bs will be just as capable as those the USMC will get... and be full stealth... that is already guaranteed to the UK.

Just why will " Those aircraft supplied to the UK will NEVER be a match operationally to their American brethren"?

Got any FACTS... or just uninformed hysterical ranting?

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2008, 07:19

SSSETOWTF

The "something" is not what makes you want to bolter. The something (burst tyre, single brake failure, skid on slick where the camrex has worn off) when moving with albeit relatively low speed is what makes you hit fuelled and armed aircraft in close proximity. The point about RVL is that you're in a box with nowhere to go once committed. Pure VL relative velocities are so low that its containable, trap recoveries allow you to bolter in the event of missing the wire, hook strike or foul deck because you maintain rpm and don't use the aircraft brakes.

Rolling is something different - you are committed, you are dependent on the aircraft systems to counter the momentum and if they don't there'll be a spot of bother. As a by-product, assuming the recovery area is purely axial, you're b8ggering up the deck design by essentially removing any parking potential back-aft or port quarter.

I agree, the F136 looks good, but then again so do many things at that stage. I just wish that folk would be careful about RVLs before buying the aircraft based purely on "being able to work around" the bringback issue.

Squirrel 41

9th Aug 2008, 10:19

SSSETOWTF; NaB;

Thank-you for a very interesting debate, which I have followed with interest. What impact on parking and sortie rates do we incur by going down the SRVL route? I fully accept that with enough (largely American) cash thrown at it, SRVLs can probably be made to work, but for me the question is one of how much cash and how much capability vs Dave-C does this cost us?

And surely this is the point: even if Dave-B works with SRVLs and all the bells and whistles, it will still carry a smaller warload less far when compared with Dave-C for about the same money. If true, why are we buying Dave-B?

(Note to WEBF: I think that there's more to it than an RAF Bona Mate conspiracy. At least I hope so....)

S41

Jackonicko

9th Aug 2008, 11:26

SSSETOWTF,

Firstly, I think it a shame that you should personally denigrate Sweetman, who I know to be a fellow PPRuNer.

Secondly, I don't think that you should compare Bill Sweetman with John Nichol.

Sweetman does do some mass-market stuff (though describing it as "mass-market trite of little technical rigour" is unfair, in my view), but his work for Jane's (and now Av Week) is at a different and much more impressive level, anyway. And while he may not have the same grasp of the detail on a given programme as a particular programme insider, he does have excellent contacts, and his grasp of the politics and economics of JSF is exemplary. He has armfuls of Aviation Journalist of the Year Trophies, to the extent that the rest of us know that if his name is on the shortlist, it's time for a fixed grin and no need to write an acceptance speech!

To accuse him of writing according to "who bought him lunch" is disgraceful, and utterly wrong - there are few aerospace journos who are as rigorously independent as Bill is, and it's as offensive as suggesting that you have spent too long being brainwashed by your current paymasters, and too long imbibing the Lockmart cool aid. And that would be offensive, as you are clearly an extremely sharp operator, and a decent and honourable chap. I'm too old to have PPRuNe heroes, but both Bill and you are on a very short list of exceptions to that rule. What a pity you two don't have some mutual respect, even if you disagree.

And I say all of that as someone who believes that if we're going to buy a carrier at all, then a STOVL JSF is clearly and irrefutably the best option to equip its air wing. With a 12 FJ squadron RAF, it's utterly essential that those squadrons allocated to the carrier are flexibly available to do other things. The training burden associated with keeping current for cat-and-trap would mean that carrier ops would effectively be a full-time job for these squadrons, and that would effectively mean two fewer RAF FJ units, and four fewer FJ squadrons capable of sharing the routine operational burden.

It's clear that blokes like Dan Robinson are convinced that F-35B will make good, and that it will do what it says on the tin, and I'm not inclined or qualified to contradict him.

But equally, no-one has reassured me that JSF's costs are under control yet, let alone that the UK will know what it's paying, nor exactly what capabilities it will and won't be getting, when it's required to commit to the programme. Even if you accept the bland reassurances we've been given about op sovereignty and ITAR (and there's nowhere near enough detail or unequivocal guarantee to reassure this tax-payer) this has got to be a worry, while the complete lack of a STOVL competitor to F-35B concerns me, too. And neither Tom Burbage nor George Standridge have been able to reassure me on these programme issues, even if the aircraft is 'technically' and operationally compelling.

And I'd congratulate Modern Elmo on his succinct summary of the real objection to JSF and CVF. "(5) I 'm not sure that aircraft carriers are the UK's top military hardware priority, whether or not the proposed aircraft carriers have catapults and arrester gear."

The Helpful Stacker

9th Aug 2008, 13:01

Secondly, I don't think that you should compare Bill Sweetman with John Nichol.

Very unfair to John Nichol.

For all his short-comings he is still someone who actually has hands on experience of modern(ish) air combat and has taken part in an actual shooting war.

Though I do agree, I cringe sometimes when he is wheeled out for Sky News.

Jackonicko

9th Aug 2008, 14:39

I mean no disrespect to John Nichol, either. He's really very good at what he does, although what he broadcasts isn't really aimed at the likes of me. He's been there and bought the T-shirt (at an exceptionally high price) and I know him to be a very nice bloke indeed, and he is very much more self effacing and modest than I expected.

He and Bill Sweetman do quite different things, and each of them does those things better than I ever could. I don't have Bill's razor sharp mind, and I certainly don't have John's credibility (through having actually done it) nor his telegenic good looks.....

SSSETOWTF

9th Aug 2008, 17:35

Not a boffin,

Your points and concerns are entirely reasonable, but a significant body of work has been done (and continues to be done) to analyse every conceivable failure case. I reiterate that the 35kt deck speed has not been plucked out of thin air. SRVL will not be an approved manoeuvre unless a lot of smart people agree that the risk of losing one aircraft, let alone several parked on the deck, is below the acceptable threshold.

Jacko,

You're a gent, sir and thanks for pulling me up on my rant. I made my point badly and while in a state of some frustration at reading too many pages of inaccurate ramblings and arbitrary proclamations about a programme that is very dear to my heart.

As I said, I own several of Mr Sweetman's books, and spent many a happy hour as a kid poring over 'Combat Aircraft of World War II' etc. But I'm afraid I still wouldn't dream of using the Tactics section of his 'Modern Air Combat' as the basis for my tactics in an air-air engagement. It makes fantastic reading for the uninitiated and gives a soupcon of the overall flavour, but it really isn't the sort of thing that a front-line mate would use. And I'm sure it was never intended as such.

I've read a couple of his articles on F-35/JSF, including the one quoted as gospel above, that have made me toss the magazine to one side / click to the next webpage with a wry smile. They do give the uninitiated a flavour of a fraction of what's going on in the programme, but even if they were 100% accurate the moment they were written (and in this particular case I don't see how it can have been), they're out of date by the time the magazine hits the newstand.

Perhaps I've missed some of his articles, or perhaps it's the old adage that 'bad news sells', but I've yet to see Mr Sweetman write anything paricularly positive about the F-35. I'm reknowned amongst my friends for being a negative and cynical person, yet I am regularly amazed by how good this airplane is and the mind-numbing capability it will give us (and I don't think I've drunk the Lockheed coolaid yet). But no one wants to talk about that and it infuriates me. Looking at what we in the RAF have been able to milk out of the Tornado, Jag & GR7/9 platforms in terms of capability, I just don't understand why people want to snipe at the F-35. Even if the programme totally implodes tomorrow and we get 10% of the capability that we thought we were going to get, it'll still make the guys who transition from one of the legacy platform's jaws drop. And it has an awful awful long way to fall before the programme starts to look like Typhoon's.

Apologies to Bill though for the lunch quip - that was too far.

Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2008, 18:24

SSSETOWTF

I'm sure they are looking at every case. Having been involved in the early stages of looking at RVL myself, I don't doubt that the mechanics, engineeing and safety of them are being given a very serious looking at and I can guess exactly where the 35 kts has come from. Lets be in no doubt - RVL is entirely possible as a means to recover a Dave B with the required bringback.

My concern (apart from the other one!) is the apparent lack of similar effort being applied to the deck management issues. Glib comments from either the IPT or DEC along the lines of "we couldn't do it operationally on C de G as its deck is too small, but CVF is much bigger" ignore the reason why CVF is the size it is. The deck is sized for various different packages in various different flypro - there will be precious little "extra" deck space with a full TAG.

The size of recovery will also have an impact on recovery interval, compounded by RVL. If you've got a pure VL recovery, then the interval between them can be relatively compressed - you can even recover multiples "in line" if necessary. Reliance on a longer runway for RVL will actually take some of that flex away and result in a longer recovery for a given number of a/c, hence more fuel required, hence impact on bringback.

With the decision for B vs C looming, this needs to be fully sorted before making the great leap.

Double Zero

10th Aug 2008, 18:04

As someone infinitely more qualified than me asked a while ago, through 'proper channels' and getting zero response, how does the F-35B taxy backwards for on deck parking etc - or is that too 'top secret ? ' - all I can see in the meantime is that an extended noseleg / nose high attitude on deck - ground might give the fan a slight forward component -'don't try & stand around marshalling ?!'

Not_a_boffin

11th Aug 2008, 09:24

Suspect it doesn't. Another reason why the deck is so large to allow taxi to parking slot and "turn-in".

Modern Elmo

11th Aug 2008, 15:32

how does the F-35B taxy backwards for on deck parking etc - or is that too 'top secret ? ' - all I can see in the meantime is that an extended noseleg / nose high attitude on deck - ground might give the fan a slight forward component -'don't try & stand around marshalling ?!'

There are extremely avant-garde technology devices that might help with that. Tow tractors, that might be what people will call 'em.

ProM

11th Aug 2008, 15:45

Tow tractors, that might be what people will call 'em.

Someone will be around in a minute to invent a more complicated solution that works no better

Modern Elmo

11th Aug 2008, 16:00

Wouldn't bigger ships with longer and wider aviation decks alleviate some of these aircraft handling problems?

Navaleye

11th Aug 2008, 18:20

Modern,

Deck space doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment as we don't seem to have any aircraft to sit on them.

here (http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=239)

The Helpful Stacker

11th Aug 2008, 18:51

There are extremely avant-garde technology devices that might help with that. Tow tractors, that might be what people will call 'em.

The Andrew have used up all their stock of towing tractors.

http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/Ship+Photo+HMS+ILLUSTRIOUS+IN+ISTANBUL+-+HELICOPTER+MISFORTUNE+%21/642673.jpg

They're are having to resort to asking more rotund matelots to lean against aircraft to push them back into position. Luckily Grey Funnel Lines has a large supply of these, especially the models fitted with upside down legs.;)

Modern Elmo

11th Aug 2008, 18:52

Navaleye, one does tend to think that additional British rotary-winged assault transport loaded with additional British Army air assaulters is a higher priority than you-know-what.

Re F-35's, here's this from today's Aviation Now:

Component Failures Impact F-35 Flight Testing

Aug 8, 2008
By Graham Warwick

Lockheed Martin continues to struggle to gain momentum in flight testing of the Joint Strike Fighter, with the first F-35 again grounded by component failure and while the second aircraft heads toward a hiatus in flying that will last into early next year.

The issues will not affect the overall schedule, says Lockheed, but they are preventing key risks being retired early. These include additional noise tests funded by the Australians at a time when the F-35's environmental impact has become an issue for some international partners.
…
The first F-35, aircraft AA-1, is grounded awaiting the repair of nacelle vent fans designed to keep the engine bay cool on the ground. The situation has echoes of the overheating problems that dogged the F-22, but Lockheed says it is unique to AA-1.

"The issues we are dealing with are independent of the thermal management system," says deputy program manager Bobby Williams. "Nothing is on the critical path, but the earlier we get the data the better."

The problem involves repeated failures of the nacelle vent fans that force air through the space between engine and airframe to prevent heat from damaging the structure. ( And also for thermal low observability -- Elmo )

While the fan failures may be unrelated, thermal management is the "biggest challenge" in the F-35, says Daniel Kunec, JSF program office director, air system integration. "It is the most limiting feature, and there are still some challenges to be overcome," he told an AIAA propulsion conference in July.

Originally designed for the canceled Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, the vent fans are unique to AA-1. "They are one-off fans that were never fully qualified because AA-1 is a one-off," says Williams. AA-1 was built before a redesign to reduce the F-35's weight and is not production standard.
The fans are surrounded by fuel, which is colder than the ambient air, and in the heat and humidity of Fort Worth, Tex., condensation is coating circuit cards inside the units and causing corrosion. The fans are being repaired by supplier Hamilton Sundstrand, but the "long pole" delaying a return to flight is applying a new conformal coating to the cards.

Williams says the problem does not affect the second F-35, production-standard aircraft BF-1, as the vent fans were relocated during the redesign to make them more accessible, avoiding the condensation issue. He expects the fans to be back in AA-1 by the end of August, after which "a couple more flights" are needed at Fort Worth before the aircraft can make its delayed ferry flight to Edwards AFB, Calif., for testing.

Williams plays down concerns about overheating in the high desert of Edwards, although AA-1 does not incorporate design changes made to improve the F-35's thermal management. These include larger engine fuel pumps, which will be introduced during early low-rate initial production to provide the full thermal management capability.

Thermal management is a particular issue for the stealthy F-35. "There are very few areas to reject heat. We can dump it or burn it," says Kunec. "Every component has a heat budget and everything is cooled by fuel." The heated fuel is either burned in the engine or cooled by heat exchangers in the engine fan duct. "The massive fuel/air heat exchanger is our saving grace for coming close to specification."

Based on lessons learned with the F-22, Williams says, the F-35 has a requirement to operate on the ground for 60 min. on a 120F day, with fully heat-soaked fuel and a full solar load. At the end of 2005, the short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) F-35B could not meet the requirement, but after redesign now meets the specification, says Kunec.

Meeting specification at the end of a mission remains a challenge for the Stovl variant. "The lift fan is a huge heat source and at the end of the mission there is little fuel left to use as a heat sink, so there is a strong peak in temperature," says Kunec. The requirement is to operate for 30 min. after landing. "We meet that with no margin," says Williams.

Already delayed more than a month, AA-1's deployment to Edwards is to perform inflight engine shutdown testing over the dry lakebed. The deployment will also be used to collect additional noise data requested by Australia. Several countries face public concerns over the noise produced by the F-35, which with 40,000 lb. of thrust is considerably more powerful than the F-16 it will replace. In Norway, there are concerns noise issues could force construction of a new base to avoid local opposition at existing facilities.

"We are working the environmental issue, but we are not doing anything from a design standpoint," says Kunec, adding, "There is a lot of misinformation on F-35 noise." Near-field noise level is comparable to legacy fighters, he says. Lockheed has said the noise footprint that reaches the base perimeter is less severe, but Kunec says far-field or community noise "is at or close to the highest level." Flyover noise data collected with AA-1 at 1,000 ft. "is right at the top, but then everything over 90-100 dB. is a problem," he says.
…

ttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw081108p2.xml&headline=Component%20Failures%20Impact%20F-35%20Flight%20Testing

LowObservable

12th Aug 2008, 12:49

Fascinating debate... it's amazing what people get up to when you're off the intartubes for a week, navigating a rental truck across half the US.

SSSETOWF - You're in grave danger of sliding into the philosophical error of the Lory in Alice in Wonderland. The Lory finally concluded every argument by saying "I'm older than you, and must know better" but still refused to disclose its age. Arguing (as many do) that only those who have access to the JSF program are qualified to discuss it (or criticize it) is equally fallacious, as is the similar argument that only those who have worn uniform or seen combat are qualified to comment on military matters. Contest the facts, not the source.

You're also picking holes in a piece from a year or more ago, when the SRVL speed parameters hadn't been disclosed. And for the record I don't recall a Sweetman book entitled "Modern Air Combat" - wasn't that Mike Spick?

Points well taken, though: The extra capability will be needed only on a hot, low-pressure day when it's essential to launch with weapons (not training) and they have to be retained if not used (tactical uncertainty). That is, in combat in the world's hotter places, which is where most of the world's armed and disgruntled people live.

NaB's basic point still seems to stand, though: you've got nowhere to run in the event of a problem, which is why RVL wasn't initially part of the program. Having had recent experience of about 12000 pounds of mass moving 35 mph and up (see above) I respect it.

As long as everyone can respect everyone else's background knowledge, though, it does sound as if a pub session with Sweetman, SSSETOWTF and NaB might be interesting... with Ann Widdecombe behind the bar, of course.

And it seems that someone's reading this thread, too...

Ares Homepage (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%3af454d19a-d42f-4be8-840d-453d897b0611&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Engines

12th Aug 2008, 17:53

I've hesitated to contribute to this thread, mainly because I was associated with the JSF programme and don't want to get into the 'I can't tell you why I'm saying this' situation that LO points up. But there are a few aspects that I might be able to assist with.

There seems to be an opinion that RVLs are a response to F-35B weight issues. Partly right, but mostly wrong, in my view.

Partly right, because it's a powered lift aircraft, and will always have a challenge with weight. When your minimum flying speed is zero, and it's all down to balancing aircraft mass on the jets, you will always be looking to get weight out. F-35B weight problems have been very publicly aired (contrast with some other aircraft programmes one could mention) and were very significant, which is why the aircraft was extensively revised. But, the weight issues actually affected all 3 variants, especially the CV, and they have all benefitted from the weight reduction effort. I'm sure that it will continue through the life of the aircraft, as will work to increase thrust in the hover at higher temperatures.

Mostly wrong, though, because the UK wants the aircraft to do more than it was required to. The programme adopted a single US definition for 'hot day', and this does not cover certain conditions on certain days in certain parts of the world. The UK have commissioned a number of studies into how the 35B can bring more back to the deck in these conditions, and RVLs came out of those.

The folk looking into RVLs are taking a very measured, pragmatic and informed approach to the issue and as far as I know, all the issues raised here are being addressed. A couple of points to consider:

Firstly, comparing braking performance of F-35B to Harrier is not viable. Harrier braking is really awful by any standards (it was actually deficient in the 60s). The gear layout isn't good for braking, the brakes are tiny and the controls are fairly primitive. F-35B has a really meaty set of brakes on well located gears, with state of the art controls and backup systems.

Secondly, I agree that landing on a deck with aircraft, people or stuff in front of you is a really average idea. I'd like to see the CVF team look at doing RVLs across the deck, using the landing area that comes from the deck's ability to accommodate an arrested landing layout. Painting a second, angled set of lines across the deck (or using suitable lighting systems) seems to me a good way to give the aircraft somewhere safer to go in an emergency.

Finally, moving about on deck - I'd expect the CVF deck to operate far more like a CVN, where most of the moves are carried out by taxying the aircraft under power, rather than using tractors. There's enough space to do so, if you are worked up and have practiced it.

Hope this post helps the thread along,

regards

Engines

NoHoverstop

12th Aug 2008, 20:45

" we might as well have the pprune cynics have a go at designing "( JSF Carrier type ) .

Please, Jetex Jim, can I have a go ?!

P1216; Offered in several versions, inc twin tailboom & F-35 style aft nozzle, + shutters instead of draggy forward nozzles; forward swept wings & possibly internal weapon carriage were also suggested, and 'do-able' - bugger stealth, increasingly stealthy & intelligent cruise missiles can do '1st day' then one would turn up with a world class fighter, I would think well able to give the Typhoon a run for it's money - well, you asked...

I have a picture in my office of various P112this and P12that proposals for what at the time was called ASTOVL. I happened to be explaining what they all were to a junior colleague today and, with the benefit of a "few" years association with ASTOVL, aSTOVL, SHR, SSF, CALF, FCBA, JSF, JCA etc (plus a memorable excursion to rummage in Yakovlev's rubbish bins) I felt fairly comfortable in running across the entire set saying "wouldn't have worked, wouldn't have worked, definitely wouldn't have worked, would have looked spectacular trying to work but wouldn't have worked" etc, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of people better than me to try to get them to work if they'd been asked.

Of course sometimes one does just has to press-on and try something, because despite what people say, it might work. Which is why whilst some people are happy to just write about SRVLs , others have actually been out there and had a go. So it's just possible that the people with direct knowledge of SRVLs, whilst never short of "Sorry tales of STOVL aviation" to remind them not to get carried away, have a better idea of the issues around SRVLs than those who have to rely on guesswork and rumour networks. Fun though that might be. :)

Jetex Jim

12th Aug 2008, 22:18

NohoverOf course sometimes one does just has to press-on and try something, because despite what people say, it might work. Well it might, and I defer to those who know about such things.

However, as one of the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground(cripes, and could that mean a taxpayer also?) I have an interest.

The 'Elephant in the living room', regarding JSF, being; seeing as how we are getting big carriers anyway, why not just go for the C version? Now the argument that the cat trap boys spend all their time practicing landings, to the expense of all else, seems a good one. But now I'm are wondering, how difficult are RVLs going to be? Will they be spending all their time practicing equally complex procedures? Just to get airborne in a less capable plane. Just as an aside, isn't it about time cat landings were de-skilled, oops I mean automated?

Now of course that elephant is really only hiding another, much bigger one. The one pointed up in my Spey Phantom post, which recalls how Britain spent shedloads of money screwing up, what was at the time, the worlds greatest fighter plane. That sorry tale was also supported by technical argument, which history has shown to be mainly b:mad:cks, most especially that the RAF M models must have Speys too, (the RAF wanted standard), so that they also could operate off the carriers! Total nonsense of course, the M model didn't have nose gear extension, or catapult bridle attachments.

Well that's all a long time ago, things are done much differently now. Maybe, but that remaining elephant is the one about how defence spending always has to buy a big slice of jobs in Britain. Well, post Thatcher, we are not 'permitted' to support British industry in any other way. But it just might be time to confront that elephant, and then maybe what's best operationally might come first, for once.

My take on a complicated subject.

SSSETOWTF

13th Aug 2008, 00:01

LO,

I love your philosophical point. But, while there is indeed a danger of those 'in the know' being the Lory, on the other side of the coin the critics/doubters run the risk of looking like Harry Enfield's "You don't want to be doing it like that!" character.

I would argue that the majority of the time you're best leaving aircraft design to full-time aircraft designers and engineers, and leaving development of military operating procedures to military pilots. That's my personal take on it and you may well disagree. But I'm also one of those dullards who believes that doctors know more than me about medicine so I don't question their every decision, and I don't walk around public buildings tapping on walls to check that the structural engineer has got his calculations right etc. And sometimes those people do indeed get it wrong.

Jetex,

I don't know the detail of why the -B is still preferred to the -C for the UK buy. I recently sat through a presentation about it from a suitably senior rank who flashed up some bar charts (with no scales) with the ubiquitous 'TEPIDOIL' procurement cost labels that were supposed to conclusively prove that the -B was the best for us. (Can't remember what half of them stand for I'm afraid - Training, Equipment, Personnel, Infrastructure.... Logistics? I'm sure someone who reads these forums is a procurement guru?) Some of the woolly handwaving was that cats & traps cost more initially, fatigue airplanes more quickly, require more pilot currency training, require larger deck crews, who all need training and accommodating on board, steam generators need building/maintaining etc. I'm assuming that the smart people have done their sums right, and that the auditors who probably check the figures for multi-billion pound programmes quite closely have done their job right. Perhaps if you're really interested a FOI request might get you some documentation that puts figures on all the various bits that you could challenge?

From my personal perspective, it's horses for courses. With a -B you've got less range (but enough to go bombing in Tain from Cottesmore) and slightly smaller weapons bays (but big enough for a healthy number of SDB2, or similar sized stores), but you've got basing flexibility (the old 'the world's full of 3000ft runways' thing) and lower overall costs to operate off boats. I'm fairly sure though that it's a BMW 7-series vs Mercedes sort of an argument - they're different, but either one will do the job very nicely.

Double Zero,

In case you still don't feel that your question's been answered - both the lift fan and the nozzle can provide a component of thrust forwards to decelerate the jet / make it taxy backwards. But it's just the same as for the Harrier - you've got to ask yourself some serious questions about why you're doing it as the chances of FODing your engine have just gone up an awful lot.

Harry Peg

13th Aug 2008, 00:13

SSSETOWTF - You missed my point slightly, probably because I didn't explain myself properly. I fully respect all the boffins and TPs working on JSF and I'm sure they are doing their upmost to generate the best solution available. However, there is a long and distinguished list of things that we as an aviation community, and especially we as Brits, didn't quite get right. And some of those instances may have been avoided had we learnt lessons from history. At the risk of sounding like a staff college academic, I'll abandon that thread there!

My main point was frustration at the prospect of 'very talented people making sub-optimal things work' (which we as a military are very good at...probably because we have to be with some of the things we are asked to make work!), when there is a more capable alternative available. I am very supportive of the JSF and think it is essential for the UK to operate it. In fact, I wish the powers that be would consider JSF as not just a Harrier replacement but one for Tornado as well! The SRVL debate is a side issue. The main debate is the overall capability of both the JSF model that the UK invests in and of the CVF as a platform.

Why would you invest in a STOVL JSF when you could have CV? The only argument that seems to keep cropping up against CV is training burden - I thought the JSF was going to have an auto-land capability? I'm sure conventional carrier approaches are a training burden, but I'm sure that would be manageable and wouldn't occupy all your time. The STOVL has all the added complications of achieving STOVL and must therefore have an equivalent increased risk of developing an emergency - why take that risk when balanced against the alternative model? The CV exceeds STOVL in range, time on stn, weapons load...all those things we need from a strike platform in the first place, and for my money the things we should be prioritising when deciding on the JSF model we want.

As far as CVF goes, why on earth would we put a ski ramp on the front, as I have seen in the latest artist impressions? Wouldn't that limit other ac from operating on our carrier? Surely we would want to get our money's worth from CVF and operate other ac types, like coalition allies flying non-JSF ac when all the JSF guys need a rest from ops, perhaps a decent fixed wing C2 asset, perhaps some organic AAR asset....maybe mapping the capability on a natural evolution of the very successful Nimitz Class.

As for non-CVF ops, surely we aren't going to contemplate putting JSF into a field site? Austere ops on some form of runway is probably as far as we would go, even with STOVL. If that is the case, with the take-off performance comparison I bet you could operate CV from most places that you can operate STOVL, especially if you bang a cable into the austere base to account for the recovery differences.

CVF, with CV JSF, with fixed wing C2, with organic AAR would be an awesome capability and a worthwhile investment in the future of UK military.

There is no denying that CVF, with STOVL JSF, with rotary C2, with no organic AAR is a second rate, less capable solution.

Being really cynical...perhaps the only thing keeping STOVL JSF ahead of CV is the reluctance to admit that JSF could replace Tornado as well.

And please make the right decision early before we end up with someone suggesting again that we could marinise Typhoon!!!

LowObservable

13th Aug 2008, 01:24

Good and interesting points...

One basic issue is that STOVL is difficult, which is why it has taken 45 years to get to a practical supersonic STOVL aircraft. The bring-back load is still a small fraction of the total landing mass, so that any problem or deficit can wipe it out rather quickly.

The cost and lack of flexibility involved in CV is real. That could be fixed with automatic landing, but that hasn't been demoed yet (people on real programs tell me it's possible), as could the lifetime-eating nature of CV ops. But as it stands I can see where STOVL is the only solution for a joint force as the RAF and RN plan.

But - Enfield Schmenfield - show me where troubled programs insulated from outsiders have ever put themselves right. Unquestionably it is up to the qualified to act and to make decisions. However, military operational experts, procurement insiders and engineers brought us the Boulton-Paul Defiant, the K-Class submarine and the Nimrod AEW.3. (And the insiders behind the last were mightily P:mad:ed at the World In Action crew who blew the whistle.)

And somebody here brought up the delays to Typhoon... which were publicized and addressed in the mid-1990s, by journos looking down the barrels of the Baron's legal goons, including the legendary Carter-Ruck. And what had suggested that there were problems? If you look at the better contemporary reports, it was that, a year or more after first flight, only a few dozen hours of testing had been carried out.

And of course the insiders said nothing was wrong, that the journos didn't have the qualifications to talk about the subject, and (above all) God forbid that they had found a black hole in the envelope that the jet couldn't get out of. (Cough) ALSR (cough).

Modern Elmo

13th Aug 2008, 02:10

That could be fixed with automatic landing, but that hasn't been demoed yet (people on real programs tell me it's possible), as could the lifetime-eating nature of CV ops. ...

Flight testing of the F/A-18E/F automatic carrier landing system

Prickett, A.L.; Parkes, C.J.
Aerospace Conference, 2001, IEEE Proceedings.
Volume 5, Issue , 2001 Page(s):2593 - 2612 vol.5
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/AERO.2001.931220

Summary:The F/A-18E/F is the U.S. Navy's premier strike fighter aircraft, manufactured by the Boeing Company. The F/A-18E/F aircraft, while maintaining a high degree of commonality with the F/A-18C/D aircraft, has a lengthened fuselage, larger wing and control surfaces, strengthened landing gear, an improved propulsion system including a growth version of the General Electric F404 engine designated the F414-GE-400, and larger high performance inlets. This paper concentrates on the development, test, and evaluation of the F/A-18E/F Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) up to and including the Third Sea Trials, upon which the aircraft was initially qualified for Mode I, totally automatic, approaches and landings to the aircraft carrier. The paper briefly describes the key components of the F/A-18E/F's ACLS, including cockpit displays and controls, antennas, autothrottles and flight control implementation, and interface with the shipboard AN/SPN-46(V) ACLS. Test procedures and methodology are presented as well as test results and interpretation. Finally, lessons learned are presented and recommendations are made for future aircraft ACLS developmental test and evaluation efforts

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7416/20148/00931220.pdf?arnumber=931220 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7416/20148/00931220.pdf?arnumber=931220)

ProM

13th Aug 2008, 07:52

The 'Elephant in the living room', regarding JSF, being; seeing as how we are getting big carriers anyway, why not just go for the C version?

I think the correct answer has been listed earlier in this thread by someone else (but I can't be bothered to check)

Steam catapults cost a hell of a lot to run and maintain. Basically we cannot afford them. EM catapults should in theory be more maintainable, but are a bit too risky at present. Hence the MoD decision to go ahead as a STOVL ship but with the option to convert to CV if the EM catapult technology gets sufficiently proven.

I haven't seen the figures so I cannot put hand on heart and say its right but the logic seems fair enough (if frustrating)

Jackonicko

13th Aug 2008, 08:35

Argh!

A cat and trap carrier with C-model JSFs would require a full time air group, because CV ops would impose a heavy training burden in a way that STOVL ops don't. Using RAF Harriers on the CVS carriers was always practical in a way that using RAF Buccaneers or Phantoms never would have been.

hulahoop7

13th Aug 2008, 09:32

Agree with Jacko. Buying C's would effectively mean handing them all over to the FAA full time. Whilst I am obviously a big fan of having the carriers, I can also see the common sense of having an aircraft than can flex from CAS in Stan to providing CAP to carrier group in short order.

CTOL is too expensive overall to be first choice.

Jetex Jim

13th Aug 2008, 10:03

ProMSteam catapults cost a hell of a lot to run and maintain.
As against the Cost of Ownership of STOVL aircraft, goodness me, and steam cats are 1940s technology!

JackonickoA cat and trap carrier with C-model JSFs would require a full time air group, because CV ops would impose a heavy training burden in a way that STOVL ops don't. Using RAF Harriers on the CVS carriers was always practical in a way that using RAF Buccaneers or Phantoms never would have been. hmm, dashed disapointing that by now, no training savings can be realised by automating CV procedures.

SSSETOWTFa suitably senior rank who flashed up some bar charts (with no scales) Yep, hide the 'weightings' and you can prove anything.

ORAC

13th Aug 2008, 10:38

Regardless of how you minimise it (STOBAR, angled deck etc), CV operations mean restricting the deck space used for turning/launching other aircraft/RW. At which stage you back into operating using launch/recovery windows/cycles - which impose their own significant limitations on when you launch and recover, which implications for additional fuel at launch/recovery, deck allert reaction timings, tactics etc etc.In short, the ramifications don't stop at the aircraft.

Navaleye

13th Aug 2008, 15:09

So, to summarise recent events. We send a "strike carrier" to the Gulf sans strike aircraft. JFH manages to cobble up 4 aircraft for a week. Big deal. Our would-be Ampbi capital ship goes over to JFTEX without any UK escort and no troop helos and has to borrow them off the US, just like Illustrious on April. What a joke they must be laughing at us. This utterly useless incompetent government has made a laughing stock out of our armed forces.

Caspian237

13th Aug 2008, 15:09

Regardless of the technicalities, is there not an issue with the respective in service dates of the B and C JSF variants?

If the RN were to commit to a cat & trap carrier, would they be required to purchase or lease an interim carrier aircraft to cover the gap between the Harriers retirement and the availability of F-35C?

hulahoop7

13th Aug 2008, 15:46

Some would say that the current shortage of harriers was always a short term blip until other types could be run out in Stan - coupled with the loss of pilots after the end of SHAR and the upgrade of airframes. Now they're comng back home they should be able to regenerate..... or be sent straight back to the Gulf to do the Presidents bidding???

Modern Elmo

13th Aug 2008, 18:14

Accession Number : ADA417314
Title : Test Results of an F/A-18 Automatic Carrier Landing Using Shipboard Relative Global Positioning System
Descriptive Note : Rept. for Jan-Apr 2001
Corporate Author : NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIV PATUXENT RIVER MD
Personal Author(s) : Sousa, Paul ; Wellons, Lee ; Colby, Glenn ; Waters, Jack ; Weir, John
Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA417314 (http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA417314) Check NTIS Availability...
Report Date : 05 SEP 2003
Pagination or Media Count : 34

Abstract : Under the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Precision Approach and Landing System program, the Navy is responsible for developing the shipboard coreponent, termed Shipboard Relative Global Positioning System (SRGPS). As part of the SRGPS effort, a test bed was developed to demonstrate air traffic control, navigation, and landing capabilities in the carrier environment. During flight testing from January through April 2001, Global Positioning System (GPS)-based automatic landings were conducted at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and aboard the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-7l) using an F/A-18A Hornet test aircraft. This report describes the overall SRGPS test effort. The report also gives an overview of the test bed hardware, as well as results for navigation sensor error, flight technical error, and total system error. The test and analysis results support the feasibility of the GPS-based precision approach and landing system concept.
Descriptors : *GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM, *CARRIER LANDINGS, *SHIPBOARD, *JET FIGHTERS, FLIGHT TESTING, TEST BEDS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, AIR NAVIGATION, PRECISION, LANDING AIDS, NAVIGATIONAL AIDS.
Subject Categories : MILITARY AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
ATTACK AND FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE
Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Search DTIC's Public STINET for similiar documents.
Members of the public may purchase hardcopy documents from the National Technical Information Service.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA417314 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA417314)

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Sep 2008, 20:11

I've just quicky skimmed through the last ten pages (since my last post here) and have only one word to add: Wibble!

However, the issue of Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landings (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/340021-shipboard-rolling-vertical-landing-saviour-dave-b.html) has been discussed on PPRuNe, on a thread of its own. A link seems appropriate. I have to say that I think it right and proper than the RN continues to be a the forefront of naval aviation innovation.

In fact, I wasn't going to post again until the first steel was cut. This may be local, as part of the carrier(s) will be built locally at Appledore. Very good news, particularly considering how they were let down by the Government (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/103917-appledore-shipyard.html) in 2003. However, more CVF equipment orders have been placed by the MOD (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/HitechWeaponsHandlingSystemForNewAircraftCarriers.htm).

The Alstec (now Babcock) weapon handling system is key to sortie generation, but the use of warehousing technology reduces the manpower needed by up to 75%, which is just as well as CVF will never have the sort of 5000 strong crew a US CVN does. It is an example were new technology means that running costs are relatively low. Likewise many systems will be common with other RN platforms, such as the new Artisan radar (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NavyToGetNewRadar.htm), which will also be fitted to frigates and amphibious vessels.

Modern Elmo

3rd Sep 2008, 00:37

At that link:

Rear Admiral Amjad Hussain, Director General Weapons at MOD Defence Equipment and Support, said:"The Artisan radar is a sophisticated world-class system ... " blah blah ...Haysus Christuus, you trust him with sensitive info.?

Maybe the RN should be restricted to the foreign customer F-35 software builds.

Jetex Jim

3rd Sep 2008, 04:24

Rear Admiral Amjad Hussain, Director General Weapons at MOD Defence Equipment and Support,

Wot!
A mole, right inside MOD Equipment and Support, and working against the best interests of the UK military?

Too improbable for words ME...

Pontius Navigator

3rd Sep 2008, 07:09

[I]Rear Admiral Amjad Hussain, Director General Weapons at MOD Defence Equipment and Support,

And from a national of a country that employs people like Von Braun, Kissinger, Schwartzkop, Schwartzenager, Powell to name but a few . . .

Rear Admiral Amjad Hussain, the highest ranking Muslim officer in the armed forces | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/sep/06/guardiansocietysupplement8)

LowObservable

3rd Sep 2008, 16:41

Interesting stuff on the weapon handling. It continues to underscore the huge difference between the US Navy and almost everyone else, with the USN putting a cast of thousands on all its ships - the orthodoxy being that they are needed to fight the ship and a fire at the same time. Meanwhile, the UK MoD did have the sense to look at carrier operations and recognize that the driver for through-life costs was the crew.

brickhistory

3rd Sep 2008, 18:08

And from a national of a country that employs people like Von Braun, Kissinger, Schwartzkop, Schwartzenager, Powell to name but a few . . .

True, but the first gent didn't really have a choice about his (second) employer...

Magic Mushroom

3rd Sep 2008, 21:32

...Meanwhile, the UK MoD did have the sense to look at carrier operations and recognize that the driver for through-life costs was the crew.

It'll be interesting to see the implications for routine ship hygiene and maintenance of such reduced manning given that the next generation of warships will be as big if not bigger than their predecessors.

Will compartments have to be sealed off to reduce such cleaning regimes to acceptable levels? Will rounds be reduced? Or can we expect to see CPOs and senior officers cleaning the heads and other nooks and crannies? And will this have a knock on effect upon the long term serviceability of CVF, T45 etc.

I’d be interested to hear the opinions of some of you RN types on this practical aspect of ever reducing crews.

Regards,
MM

glad rag

3rd Sep 2008, 21:44

You forgot the shoes.:}

Pontius Navigator

3rd Sep 2008, 22:22

True, but the first gent didn't really have a choice about his (second) employer...

:) True.

But we had a few who were worked for the wrong side - Klaus Fuchs, Bruno Pontecorvo etc :)

Essentially you must treat, vet and observe the person and not do a blanket ethnic profiling.

Modern Elmo

4th Sep 2008, 03:52

You forgot the shoes.

Is that something to do with ritual foot washing facilities?

Pontius Navigator

4th Sep 2008, 06:19

MM,

Maybe they will let out a MAC and get Qinetiq or Serco to do the house keeping :}

Probably hire in a whole team from Kharachi and be far cheaper. Remember the Chinese. They did all the dhobbi. In WWI they did lots of trench and grave digging for the British Army.

Jetex Jim

4th Sep 2008, 10:58

Services: Housekeepers (http://www.mrshunts.co.uk/services/housekeepers.htm)

Velina is a friendly, sweet Filipino housekeeper with over 20 years experience as a live in nanny/housekeeper and housekeeper. Velina is available to start anytime and is looking for a live in housekeeper position (she would consider a role with children if they are over 12),

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

4th Sep 2008, 20:05

Ships husbandry in a large ship without a large compliment is a consideration. A bigger consideration is firefighting and damage control.

pr00ne

4th Sep 2008, 22:10

The damm things will have a crew of 1,450 people, WHAT is the problem?

Modern Elmo

5th Sep 2008, 14:12

Espionage really does happen. There really are traitors out there. I too a course under Prof. J. Reece Roth back in 1981. Pompous gent.
The only fellow I ever saw wearing a white lab coat while teaching class.

Now Dr. Roth's going to a taxpayer-supported retirement home!

washingtonpost.com > Nation
Professor Is Convicted Of Sharing Technology

J. Reece Roth
J. Reece Roth (AP)
Enlarge Photo
...

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 4, 2008; Page A04
A federal jury in Knoxville, Tenn., convicted a retired university professor on conspiracy, wire fraud and export control charges yesterday for improperly sharing sensitive technology with students from China and Iran.
Plasma physicist J. Reece Roth, 70, faces more than a decade in prison when he is sentenced early next year. Prosecutors say the professor emeritus at the University of Tennessee exchanged restricted military data with foreign research assistants and traveled overseas with electronic versions of sensitive materials on his laptop computer.
The case is the latest in a series involving the Arms Export Control Act. It also is among the first in which the government sought to punish a defendant for distributing scientific know-how rather than equipment to foreigners studying at universities with military research contracts.
Roth worked with a Knoxville technology company on a pair of U.S. Air Force contracts to develop plasma-based guidance systems for the wings of unmanned vehicles from 2004 to 2006, according to court papers. The drones are used in surveillance and to house weapons. This year, the company, Atmospheric Glow Technologies, and another scientist there pleaded guilty to related charges.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303228.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303228.html)

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

Roth's mind-set on trial
Dueling lawyers say man either arrogant or naive in violation
By Jamie Satterfield (Contact)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Related links
* Indictment of John Roth and Atmospheric Glow Technologies
* University of Tennessee faculty page on J. Reece Roth

University of Tennessee professor emeritus J. Reece Roth either was too arrogant to comply with laws designed to keep foreign eyes from peeking at sensitive military data or too naive to know when he should.
That line of demarcation was clearly drawn Tuesday as dueling attorneys sought to sway a federal jury deciding whether Roth plotted with a Knoxville technology firm to violate the Arms Export Control Act, repeatedly allowed two foreign national graduate students access to information on a U.S. Air Force project and took data about it to China in May 2006.
Jurors deliberated some five hours before U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan sent them home for the night. They will return today to continue debating Roth's fate.
Roth ran afoul of the law when he agreed to serve as a subcontractor on an Air Force project awarded to Atmospheric Glow Technologies Inc. that involved the use of plasma actuators on drones.
AGT and ex-employee Daniel Max Sherman, a physicist and former Roth student, have pleaded guilty.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Will Mackie told jurors in closing arguments Tuesday that Roth well knew the project fell under the auspices of export control, pointing to Roth's own handwritten notes. In those notes, Roth detailed a plan to divide labor between an American graduate student, who would handle export control data, and a Chinese graduate student, who would work in the UT Plasma Research Laboratory.
That plan fell apart, however, when the division stymied progress, and the two graduate students began sharing information, testimony showed. The case came under federal probe when Roth wanted to include an Iranian student. AGT balked. Roth complained to UT officials, who, testimony showed, told him he was violating the law.
"His mind-set was, 'I know what the rules should be. This is my area. I know what's best for this,' " Mackie told jurors. "Dr. Roth, in his own mind, said, 'I know what I'm doing. I don't have to follow this.' "
...

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/03/roths-mind-set-on-trial/ (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/03/roths-mind-set-on-trial/)

LowObservable

5th Sep 2008, 15:12

Presenting the answer to the CVF crewing issues:

http://peterthink.blogs.com/thinking/roomba_1.jpg

Widger

5th Sep 2008, 18:44

Modern Elmo......shame on you!:=:=:=

Admiral Hussein is a fine Officer and a first class leader.

Nostrinian.....Don't tar the Wardroom with the American brush!

EP99j

8th Sep 2008, 13:27

It is truly depressing to see that we are now receiving contributions from our American friends which suggest that they hail from those parts of that country where they do not find it necessary to cook their meat before eating it. The long list of those in USA who worked tirelessly for the Nazi's or, worse yet, the Japanese,would include not only "Dear little Werner whose good little earner" was the US Space programme, but the head of NBC postwar research, Mr Ford of automobile fame and Ambassador Kennedy.It saddens me also to recognise that, having spent a Khalif's ransome on developing Typhoon, with one of the declared reasons being to ensure we keep our options open in international procurement, we are again embarking upon a development option in the LM aircraft which, for all its hype, is still in trouble in both spec and delivery terms.( I d not, of course, suggest that marinising a Typhoon is an option, only that the whole proframme was designed to maintain an r&d and production base that would ensure we did not have to follow this route) I still find myself emotionally stirred by the thought of the Andrew having big flat tops. My head however still persists in thinking "where are the URG's and CBG's coming from?" The actual build time on these vessels will see an IOC when? 2020? when the airplane will have been 25 years in development. Politics will drive a procurement of this airplane, however much its capability is finally compromised by its hybrid status. It's a real shame that we find ourselves driving it in co-operation with the sort of neanderthals who post comments such as those I read here today. Mr Boot would be turning in his grave.

LowObservable

8th Sep 2008, 14:14

It says here on the RN's own site...

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.1257

that the root of the word Admiral is....

ARABIC!

Oh :mad:! Islamists under the bunk! EVERYBODY PANIC

ORAC

11th Sep 2008, 17:14

Defense News: Contract Awarded for 1st of New U.S. Carrier Class

The U.S. Navy awarded Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding a $5.1 billion contract Sept. 10 to begin construction of the first ship of a new class of aircraft carrier.

Northrop's Newport News, Va., shipyard will build the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), lead ship of the first new class of nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers in more than four decades.

The Newport News yard is the only shipyard in the world currently capable of building the large aircraft carriers used by the Navy. CVN 78-class ships are expected to displace around 100,000 tons with a length of nearly 1,100 feet. The design of the new flattops includes a new flight deck with an improved weapon handling system, advanced arresting gear, a newly developed electromagnetic aircraft launch system, new and simplified nuclear propulsion plants and a new electrical power generation system.

The last 10 aircraft carriers belong to the Nimitz class. Construction on the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) began in 1967 and the ship entered service in 1975. The tenth and last ship of the class, the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), is expected to be delivered to the Navy in 2009.

The new, seven-year cost-plus incentive fee contract covers the detail design and construction of the Gerald R. Ford. Advance construction of the ship began in 2005 under a separate contract valued at $2.7 billion. Total cost of the new carrier is expected to be about $11 billion; Keel-laying is scheduled to take place in the fall of 2009 with delivery to the fleet in 2015....

Jim Dean

12th Sep 2008, 09:56

Nostrinian,
Quote
PS I cant let this lie, Im not suggesting that their is a racism issue in the Wardroom, but I've still yet after my third decade RN meet many Black or Asian Officers, which is so unusual. Why is this? And no FAA aircrew of that origin at all. Ever. And my god we now have a F1 driving whizz kid who is black.

IIRC there was a black Obs at Portland on Lynx in 80's (can't remember his name). He may only be a .5, like Obama, so not sure if that counts and there was an Indian guy around at the same time who I think was an engineer. Can't remember his name either. Where the hell have those brain cells gone?!

airborne_artist

12th Sep 2008, 10:09

PS I cant let this lie, Im not suggesting that their is a racism issue in the Wardroom, but Ive still yet after my third decade RN meet many Black or Asian Officers, which is so unusual. Why is this? And no FAA aircrew of that origin at all. Ever.

There was a 100% Asian looker at CU, who I think worked in the SK sim, in 79/80. Probably a Lt Cdr and tall-ish, as I recall. I'm certain he was not an exchange officer from the Indian Navy.

althenick

12th Sep 2008, 10:22

I've just been on wiki (not always accurate I know) But according to it the new CVN 78 will cost $5.1 Million. It seems to me that for not a lot more the UKDF could get a far larger and more capable platform.

... or am I missing something ?

Al

Not_a_boffin

12th Sep 2008, 10:36

Yes - all the previous contracts already let.

Tim Colton's website gives some details of these on the front page.

Maritime Business Strategies (http://www.coltoncompany.com/)

$5.1Bn is £2.8Bn per ship at todays exchange rates. The actual value - totalling all the contracts noted above would be £4.5Bn per ship, or over double our current programme.

You would also have to factor in an awful lot of additional infrastructure work for a UK CVN, as only Devonport has a nuclear licence and a CVF/CVN won't fit in there.

The price of CVF is not as cheap as it perhaps could / should have been, but MoD bears a large proportion of the responsibility for that and it certainly ain't going to get much cheaper now.

Modern Elmo

13th Sep 2008, 17:49

Bolstering a revisionist view of the late Sen. McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee:

Figure in Rosenberg case finally admits spying for Soviets
By Sam Roberts
Published: September 12, 2008

NEW YORK: In 1951, Morton Sobell was tried and convicted with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on espionage charges. He served more than 18 years in Alcatraz and other federal prisons, traveled to Cuba and Vietnam after his release in 1969 and became an advocate for progressive causes.
Through it all, he maintained his innocence.
But on Thursday, Sobell, 91, dramatically reversed himself, shedding new light on a case that still fans smoldering political passions [ amongst an ethnic group which is not to be named]. In an interview, he admitted for the first time that he had been a Soviet spy.
And he implicated his fellow defendant Julius Rosenberg in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the U.S. government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.
In the interview with The New York Times, whose global edition is the International Herald Tribune, Sobell, who lives in New York, was asked whether as an electrical engineer he turned over military secrets to the Soviets during World War II when they were considered allies of the United States and were bearing the brunt of Nazi brutality. Was he, in fact, a spy?
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, call it that," he replied. "I never thought of it as that in those terms."
...

Sobell made his disclosures on Thursday as the National Archives, in response to a lawsuit filed by historians, journalists and a private group, the National Security Archive, released most of the grand jury testimony in the espionage conspiracy case against him and the Rosenbergs.
...
In the interview, Sobell drew a distinction between atomic espionage and the details of radar and artillery devices he said he stole for the Russians.
"What I did was simply defensive, an aircraft gun," he said. "This was defensive. You cannot plead that what you did was only defensive stuff, but there's a big difference between giving that and stuff that could be used to attack our country."
(One device mentioned specifically by Sobell, the SCR 584 radar, is believed by military experts to have been used against U.S. aircraft in Korea and Vietnam.)
...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/12/america/spy.php?page=1 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/12/america/spy.php?page=1)

LowObservable

13th Sep 2008, 18:18

Modern Elmo wins 3 Internets today for out of control thread creep.

hulahoop7

14th Sep 2008, 07:51

We might be paying over odds but wee are still paying £4bn for two rather than £6bn for one. You could probably crew both CVFs with the CVNs compliment. So not such a bad deal after all.

althenick

14th Sep 2008, 19:07

CVF v CVN

We might be paying over odds but wee are still paying £4bn for two rather than £6bn for one. You could probably crew both CVFs with the CVNs compliment. So not such a bad deal after all.

£4Bn for 2 CVF and $6Bn for CVN - but none the less still expensive

Al

Pontius Navigator

14th Sep 2008, 20:07

And both cheap when set against the cost of Dii/f at £7.3bn.

Modern Elmo

15th Sep 2008, 22:35

We might be paying over odds but wee are still paying £4bn for two rather than £6bn for one. You could probably crew both CVFs with the CVNs compliment. So not such a bad deal after all.

And how much are wee going to be paying for fuel for the CVF and for the fleet oiler carrying additional fuel for the CVF five or ten or twenty years from now?

Modern Elmo

15th Sep 2008, 22:48

North Sea oil will all be gone in a few more years. After that, the RN will have to buy imported fuel for its aircraft carriers.

DARPA Eyes Cheaper, Greener Fuel from Coal

Sep 12, 2008

Graham Warwick [email protected]

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has unveiled an "aggressive" program to demonstrate economical and environmentally friendly conversion of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels.

DARPA has issued a broad agency announcement (BAA) soliciting research proposals and plans to award 12-month contracts totaling $4.56 million to demonstrate the feasibility of alternative coal to liquid (CTL) technologies. Already investigating biofuels, the agency says its CTL program is intended to demonstrate processes that could meet Defense Department demand for JP-8 jet fuel from U.S. coal reserves at a cost-competitive price compared with petroleum-based fuels.

...

The indirect method of producing CTL fuels is to first gasify the coal then convert it to hydrocarbon fuel using Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Each kilogram of coal converted uses a kilogram of water and produces 1.3 kg of CO2 and 0.27 kg of oil, says DARPA.

Using existing technologies, DARPA says, a 100,000 barrel per day (bpd.) CTL plant will cost $6 billion to build, four-times that of a similar-capacity crude oil refinery, while the end-user fuel cost is expected to exceed $4.50/gal.

DARPA's goals for its CTL program equate to a capital cost of less than $1.5 billion for a 100,000bpd plant with zero CO2 emissions, less than $3/gal for JP-8 jet fuel, and less than 0.5 kg. of water consumed for every kilogram of coal converted .

...

DARPA Eyes Cheaper, Greener Fuel from Coal | AVIATION WEEK (http://aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/COAL09128.xml&headline=DARPA%20Eyes%20Cheaper,%20Greener%20Fuel%20from%20C oal&channel=defense)