Dave-B She moves!

[Navaleye]

Interesting article here. Should be in the air next year. First USMC deliveries in 2011.

Here (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.31805884.1198088520.uLOo2n8AAAEAAHUNda UAAAAB&modele=jdc_34)

[LowObservable]

But there are always more heretic scum (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3460ee22-8582-4dab-8eda-8a4c183dbd40)to be tortured, forced to recant and convert to the true faith of St Stovl the Runwayless, and then burned at the stake...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3460ee22-8582-4dab-8eda-8a4c183dbd40

[Impiger]

I've got a tenner says we'll not see one in squadron service (RN or RAF) before 2020! Any takers?

[Navaleye]

Impiger,

I don't think find many takers. I forecast 2017 not that long ago. Still its a nice looking bird. Can't wait to see it in the air.

[Backwards PLT]

Good article by Bill Sweetman - exactly what is the justification again?

We are building big carriers, designed to have a catapult but we aren't putting one on to save money. But that means we have to buy an aircraft that is far less capable and far more expensive both to buy and to run. I pray that there is a cunning plan somewhere in the MOD, but I fear that perhaps not......

Never mind, it will be cool at airshows and will keep the Harrier mafia happy.:ugh:

ps I also reckon 2020ish is a good guess.

[Exrigger]

Navaleye, just in case you have not seen this, if you have someone might be interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6WFyNMnFgI

[Evalu8ter]

"I pray that there is a cunning plan somewhere in the MOD"
If there is, then it revolves around single-service interests.
1. CV Dave would require a return to pure "Cat & Trap" naval aviation, with the associated training burden and specialisation. This would argue, heavily, in favour of a Dark Blue emphasis - guess the Light Blue Harrier mafia wouldn't be too chipper at that...ergo by having the V/STOL ac the RAF retain more Sqns.
2. The whole life costs of a "cat & trap" CV are greater due to the need to recruit, train and house more people - the Dark Blue would rather spend the money on more ships to conduct more Cocker Ps.
3. AW want to sell Merlin as a MASC platform. If you go for a normal carrier and ignore the E-2 then you deserve to be shot...so the Politicians have a stake too.
4. The army have been told by the other two services that CVF stands for "Cavalry Vehicle (FRES) and are therefore happy to go along with it...
See, it's simple when you see the bigger picture!!!

[threepointonefour]

One glance at the thread title and I thought it was about a certain large F3 nav ...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Good news. But how long will the capability gap between Sea Harrier and F35B (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) actually last (ie when will it enter UK service, along with CVF?), and will the RN still have the full range of skills needed for carrier operations?

[Evalu8ter]

"will the RN still have the full range of skills needed for carrier operations?"

To be blunt, who cares? The proper question is will UK PLC have the full range of skills? CVF will never be a misty-eyed return to the days of Ark and Eagle, it will be a tri-service effects-delivering platform with a TAG to deliver the effect - be it RAF/RN FJ or RW or Army AH/ARH. Single service parochialism must die out with these very, very expensive assets.

[Tourist]

Thats quite right Evalu8r.

When do you suggest the first RN and Army Typhoon course starts training?

Oh...........I see..........You mean that other services expensive programmes should be shared, but not the RAF very very expensive programmes.

Incidentally, the RN would LOVE to get some RAF people on the submarines so we don't have to.

[Evalu8ter]

Tourist,
I actually agree. It is only a bigoted mindset at the top of my service that prevents perfectly capable, not to mention experienced, RN single-seat fighter pilots from flying the Typhoon. It's a bit pathetic really; with the Typhoon radar sharing more than a passing bit of DNA with the SHAR's radar I consider it an opportunity missed. We were perfectly happy to let RN pilots fly F3s when we were short..Mind you, perhaps it's the RN not wanting to risk losing their best pilots to the Typhoon force for good?

The RAF are not alone in the "it's my toy" mentality. The AAC have had AH for a long time now, and only now is the first crab getting to fly it (though the RN have had a exchange before).

Submarines? Mate, you're welcome to them!!!

[Sunk at Narvik]

"it will be a tri-service effects-delivering platform with a TAG to deliver the effect"

Hmmm..in other words an aircraft carrier :rolleyes:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Evalu8ter

I was actually thinking about whether the RN still has the ability to run a large ship with a large number of aircraft flying a large number of sorties. It really is a whole ship activity involving all sorts of people from the flight deck party to the Officer Of the Watch and Quartermaster on the bridge, to the watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre, not forgetting the Operations Room team and many others.

Its disappointing to learn that no RN Pilots are keeping current with air to air stuff by flying the Typhoon.

[glad rag]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3460ee22-8582-4dab-8eda-8a4c183dbd40

At last some truth.....what a stupid, overcomplicated design, just look at the number of critical airframe changes req'd to get that heap back on the deck as shown in the illustration :ugh::ugh::ugh:.

[Navaleye]

Webf,
This is taking on the characteristics of a comic opera.

JF2000 formed. GR7s escorted by FA-2s providing a balanced airgroup of a about 14 - 16 aircraft on a CVS.

2003: We don't need a balanced airgroup any more, so we'll bin the Shar and stick with 7 GR7s and hope uncle Sam is close by if everything goes pear shaped. Lets not forget what happened last time we needed help. They sent us their best wishes. Air combat skills left to wither on vine. Aircrew leave in droves.

2005: JFH sent Kandahar, maritime aviation skills left to wither on the vine. RN has to borrow airgroups from 3 other countries in order to prevent skill fade and more PVRs through boredom.

Looking forward:

Dave-B is merely a continuation of the status quo. I agree with the previous contributor who says we won't see an operational squadron until 2020.
Quite how we get from the lowest ebb we are right now to where the MoD wants us to be with CVF is totally unclear.

[glad rag]

Patently obvious that "you" (?) are not meant too. And this is not a good thing as naval aviation is it's own beast and "should" be left to those who know it best.

[Evalu8ter]

WEBF,
Completely agree, and I apologise for taking the aircrew-centric view. If this is the case then it is potentially more worrying than losing the aircrew; does the RN need to grip this now? Will project Fisher help? Borrowing an airgroup is one thing, but can you imagine what Italian and Spanish stokers are like!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

We need to have embarked jets as often as possible, to maintain and develop these whole ship skills. When Typhoon takes over the Afghanistan commitment the situation will improve with JFH, although there will be considerably less aircraft than there were not not so long ago, at the time we need to ramp up fixed wing skills in preparation for CVF.

The embarkation of US, Italian and Spanish AV8Bs aboard Illustrious has helped, although it is not quite the same as our own aircraft.