If only we had a carrier with ‘Cats and Traps’!

[Lima Juliet]

i see the new General Atomics MQ-25 is shaping up. Unmanned AAR for probe and drogue plus a maritime ISTAR capability. But not for the UK with no ‘cats’ and no ‘traps’!

http://www.ga-asi.com/websites/gaasi/images/products/aircraft_systems/mq-25/GA-ASI_MQ-25_03_Dusk.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

Next refit?

[typerated]

I wonder if whoever signed off on the carriers and the B models ever considered at the time if it might not be the best of ideas?
I wonder if they have changed their mind since?

If I could be bothered I'd post a photo of an E-2 - I see they have also been shaping up nicely for a while too!

[ORAC]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marines-set-2019-target-for-osprey-tanker-fit-433899/

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/shipborne-air-air-refuelling-capability-explored-queen-elizabeth-carriers/

[Obi Wan Russell]

If you have a spare £2Billion per ship for the conversion to cat and trap, please feel free to chip in. Money is the sole reason they weren't fitted so.

[thunderbird7]

Have a listen to The Fighter Pilot Podcast (https://fighterpilotpodcast.com/) for some fascinating explanations of carrier ops, including the use of a tanker for launch and recovery in blue water ops. For those of us who just 'got in the way' in an MPA, it gives a whole new level of respect!!! Night landing when low on fuel in the middle of the Pacific on a pitching deck? I'll take the honkers stew and fly back home option thanks!

[tucumseh]

I wonder if whoever signed off on the carriers and the B models ever considered at the time if it might not be the best of ideas?

We were told in 2003 that it was a nil-cost modification. The reply was unprintable.

[Jimlad1]

It was looked at in 2010 and the reality was the cost and risk was so high that the RN would only keep one of the two CVF class in service. The other would have been scrapped as soon as it was completed.

The risks were considerable and would have massively delayed return to fixed wing carrier ops for very limited benefits (the CTOL carrier offering fairly limited operational advantages for the likely air wing that the UK would concievably use). The value of the design is not that great, and I'd rather see the money spent on more ships, than buying a fanboy platform of limited value.

[KenV]

I guess it all depends on affordability. If you decide you can't afford dedicated aerial tankers (even unmanned ones) or dedicated AWACS aircraft, or dedicated jammer aircraft, or fixed wing COD, then the choice between cat & trap vs STOVL carriers is pretty easy. Plus, if you haven't had cat and trap carriers in several years, how hard will it be to relearn how to do that? It's as much art as science. So yet more pressure to go STOVL

On the other hand, once you're committed to STOVL carriers, you're committed to no tankers, no AWACS, no jammers, and no COD for the life of the carriers, or about half a century. And let's say a five decades goes by with no cat & trap carriers. How difficult and expensive will it be to recreate everything that cat & trap requires when you haven't done if for several decades? Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have been able to pull it off. At least not yet.

[Heathrow Harry]

We were told in 2003 that it was a nil-cost modification. The reply was unprintable.

should have got in writing.......

[sandiego89]

I guess it all depends on affordability. If you decide you can't afford dedicated aerial tankers (even unmanned ones) or dedicated AWACS aircraft, or dedicated jammer aircraft, then the choice between cat & trap vs STOVL carriers is pretty easy. On the other hand, once you're committed to STOVL carriers, you're committed to no tankers, no AWACS, and no jammers for the life of the carriers, or about half a century.

Right on Ken. The price jump from STOVL to full Cat and Trap is eye watering- and it's not just the "cats and trap"- a new E-2D makes the F-35 look cheap. When you figure in an air wing of several types, increased training (carrier quals) and the infrastructure, it becomes unaffordable pretty quickly.

[KenV]

Right on Ken. The price jump from STOVL to full Cat and Trap is eye watering- and it's not just the "cats and trap"- a new E-2D makes the F-35 look cheap. When you figure in an air wing of several types, increased training (carrier quals) and the infrastructure, it becomes unaffordable pretty quickly.Pilot carrier quals for F-35 is already gone, and its going away for Super Hornet (Magic Carpet). It'll take a long while for it to go away for the E-2. Gotta love automation.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If you have a spare £2Billion per ship for the conversion to cat and trap, please feel free to chip in. Money is the sole reason they weren't fitted so.Also the extra manpower needed for catapults and arrestor gear, the lack of steam, the desire to have a common aircraft for RN and RAF, and for it to be possible for the carrier to be rapidly reinforced, and training issues (CTOL has a huge training burden).

I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.

Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.

[giblets]

Aren't the new carriers designed to be able to accomodate the v-22 Osprey, for which a tanker variant is being developed for the Marines?! Although it's not been financed, that must be a possibility, along with some sort of AWACS option

[KenV]

I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.Ummm, not quite. The MQ-25 has a large fuel offload requirement at a significant range from the carrier. This is to give the fighters making the attack considerably greater range, enabling the carrier to be further out at sea and more difficult to attack. And with the automated landings afforded by F-35 and Magic Carpet on Super Hornet, bolters will become far far fewer, significantly reducing tanker requirements around the carrier. We are entering a whole new world.

[sandiego89]

Aren't the new carriers designed to be able to accomodate the v-22 Osprey, for which a tanker variant is being developed for the Marines?! Although it's not been financed, that must be a possibility, along with some sort of AWACS option

Yes, the new carriers could take aboard V-22's and Tanker, AWACS, armed and COD versions (or capability added to troop versions) of the V-22 have been talked about for years, and a small number of V-22's in UK service would undoubtedly bring a welcome capability, but would likely be cost prohibitive. Tanking capability and COD versions are on their way to US service.

[dangermouse]

AWACS for the carrier is already planned, it's called Merlin Mk2 ASAC (Crowsnest to you and me), COD can be done either by Merlin Mk4 or CH47...

personally I think there is more chance of me winning the lottery (which I don't play) than the RN having 5 or 6 V22 to support 1 carrier (after all only 1 will ever be at sea at a time)

DM

[Lima Juliet]

Also the extra manpower needed for catapults and arrestor gear, the lack of steam, the desire to have a common aircraft for RN and RAF, and for it to be possible for the carrier to be rapidly reinforced, and training issues (CTOL has a huge training burden).

I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.

Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.



Steam? How very 19th Century! Surely EMALS is the way ahead and it also reduces the ships compliment as it needs less to service the antiquated steam hydraulics? Also, the unit cost of buying C models would go well below the B if we were buying some Cs - thus offsetting the £2bn retrofit? Plus the C has a better payload and range.

As for VTOL not needing a tanker to hold off until the ship is in suitable viz, I can recall the SHars having to divert to mainland Italy during DENY FLIGHT as their through-deck cruiser was socked out in sea fog. Luckily they were steaming close to friendly airbases.

Nope the lack of cats and traps was a significant issue that has cut down even further the choice of aircraft we can embark - it’s really F35B and helicopters or nothing. Pretty expensive for effectively a helicopter carrier!

Still it’s spilt milk now...:{

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Steam? How very 19th Century! Surely EMALS is the way ahead and it also reduces the ships compliment as it needs less to service the antiquated steam hydraulics? Also, the unit cost of buying C models would go well below the B if we were buying some Cs - thus offsetting the £2bn retrofit? Plus the C has a better payload and range.

As for VTOL not needing a tanker to hold off until the ship is in suitable viz, I can recall the SHars having to divert to mainland Italy during DENY FLIGHT as their through-deck cruiser was socked out in sea fog. Luckily they were steaming close to friendly airbases.

Nope the lack of cats and traps was a significant issue that has cut down even further the choice of aircraft we can embark - it’s really F35B and helicopters or nothing. Pretty expensive for effectively a helicopter carrier!

Still it’s spilt milk now...:{

I had no idea that the US Navy had EMALS working..... You mean its not ready yet? So what would have been fitted in the interim?

[Lima Juliet]

The FORD has been throwing F18s off its deck with EMALS - see video below:

https://youtu.be/LGqzuWqHDz4

[Evalu8ter]

"AWACS for the carrier is already planned, it's called Merlin Mk2 ASAC (Crowsnest to you and me), COD can be done either by Merlin Mk4 or CH47..."

Crowsnest will be significantly comprised in a non-compounded Merlin. The operating altitude will restrict the search area of the radar, and the (relatively) slow transit speed will make H24 orbits at a range far enough out to counter the latest generation of Anti Ship Missiles very hard to manage - especially if in "blue water" with the potential for multiple threat axis. Lucky we've got lots of DD/FF to cover the gaps....oh...

COD can only be done by CH-47 or Merlin if close to shore, not if the QEC is operating as a Carrier in "blue water" rather than glorified LPH in the Littoral. The USN V-22 COD will deliver 6000lb of cargo out to 1100 miles. A CH47 can carry more but not as far, and the Merlin certainly can't.....COD and ASACS, along with meaningful AAR capability, are the main victims of the VTOL carrier decision...

[Mil-26Man]

None of which seemed to affect operations of Hermes or the Invincible-class ships.

[Pontius Navigator]

None of which seemed to affect operations of Hermes or the Invincible-class ships.
Really? If the piece of string twixt ship and aircraft was longer the operating area would be extended by the square of the increased range. The threat level would have reduced accordingly.

[Mil-26Man]

On terms of COD, the QE ships will be able to carry a lot more of what they need than the Invincible shops could - a probable 12 jets on a vessel that can carry 70-odd leaves a lot of space for spares. How long are the ships expected to remain in 'blue water for anyway?

[ORAC]

a probable 12 jets on a vessel that can carry 70-odd leaves a lot of space for spares. Which isn’t how the F-35 spares/support system and ALIS operates......

[Pontius Navigator]

Which isn’t how the F-35 spares/support system and ALIS operates......
I heard yesterday that Honda imports 2,000,000 parts per day from Europe AND fits them within one hour of receipt. Now that is an efficient logistics operation.

[PhilipG]

Which isn’t how the F-35 spares/support system and ALIS operates......
As a point of interest, does anyone know how the USMC or the USN are or are planning to ensure that their air wings are able to efficiently and effectively operate in a blue water or contested litoral environment?

A daily / hourly/ delivery of spares required through ALIS?

The other way of looking at it I suppose is are there figures in the public domain for the availability of the embarked F35Bs?

[Blacksheep]

The QE2 class carriers need to get within 560 miles of the target for their F35Bs to be able to do anything useful. I think the QE2s are a bit big for coastal operations, so there's a very limited scope for targeting until the marines have gone ashore and secured suitable locations for an operational base from which the F35Bs can operate. It seems to me that rather than force-projectors, these monster flat tops are not much more than militarised versions of the Atlantic Conveyor. A fleet of half a dozen Illustrious replacements would have made more sense.

[FODPlod]

The QE2 class carriers need to get within 560 miles of the target for their F35Bs to be able to do anything useful. I think the QE2s are a bit big for coastal operations, so there's a very limited scope for targeting until the marines have gone ashore and secured suitable locations for an operational base from which the F35Bs can operate. It seems to me that rather than force-projectors, these monster flat tops are not much more than militarised versions of the Atlantic Conveyor. A fleet of half a dozen Illustrious replacements would have made more sense.
AAR and external tanks (either drop tanks or conformal tanks) can increase the operational radius of a carrier's air wing considerably.

There is no proportionate relationship between the size and the cost of a ship. The maxim 'steel is cheap and air is free' may not be totally accurate but is close enough to defeat such arguments as yours.

The main expense of the QEC will be its through-life costs, mainly comprising manpower. The crew of 700 is comparable to that of the cramped bodge job that was the Illustrious class CVS. Half a dozen Illustrious replacements would still require similarly expensive minimum manpower, C4I, weapons & sensor systems, propulsion, electrical power generation, automation, hotel services, etc., as a QEC. How can you possibly equate the cost of one QEC with six (or even three) of the other?

[NutLoose]

The main expense of the QEC will be its through-life costs, mainly comprising manpower. The crew of 700 is comparable to that of the cramped bodge job that was the Illustrious class CVS. Half a dozen Illustrious replacements would still require similarly expensive minimum manpower, C4I, weapons & sensor systems, propulsion, electrical power generation, automation, hotel services, etc., as a QEC. How can you possibly equate the cost of one QEC with six (or even three) of the other?

Surely if you went the route of new build Lusty class ships you would use the current technology available and used in the Queen to upgrade the new builds and thus reduce the manning requirements down to a more managable and cost effective number.. you wouldn't build it to the original spec.
I often wonder what something like a new build Buccaneer would be like with new engines, weapon systems and modern cockpit and avionics fit, but that's digressing from the thread.

[FODPlod]

Surely if you went the route of new build Lusty class ships you would use the current technology available and used in the Queen to upgrade the new builds and thus reduce the manning requirements down to a more managable and cost effective number.. you wouldn't build it to the original spec.
I often wonder what something like a new build Buccaneer would be like with new engines, weapon systems and modern cockpit and avionics fit, but that's digressing from the thread.
If you made it smaller, do you think you would be able to build/buy six (or three) of your ‘new build’ Buccaneers for the same price as a Typhoon and reduce the costs and numbers of the minimum manpower and infrastructure required to fly/operate/maintain/support and provide training for each one accordingly?

[George K Lee]

Further digression: I have often speculated that if the A-6F Intruder II had survived, we wouldn't have needed much else in the MidEast for the past 17 years.

Further to the range discussion: AAR and external tanks are not very relevant. There are no plans to resurrect external fuel for the F-35, and there is no QE-class-compatible tanker in prospect that is any use.

Also, as far as I am aware, the reference F-35B mission is all-hi-altitude... so the range will be lower unless you're just dropping two 1000 pound JDAMs on coordinates.

[glad rag]

AAR and external tanks (either drop tanks or conformal tanks) can increase the operational radius of a carrier's air wing considerably.

Neither of which fit RAF F35's operated from QEC. What AAR is deployed from QEC??

So what now?

[ORAC]

I refer you to my links in post #4.

Going back many years, part of the weight reduction for the F-35B involved removing the piping for the wing stations, so no wing tanks can be carried. I believe a centreline tank can be carried - but only at the expense of both stealth and gun carriage. I have not seen any mention of lightweight/cost tanks for routine carriage and drop during operations - and would question the number that the carrier could carry if they did exist.

[Evalu8ter]

"As a point of interest, does anyone know how the USMC or the USN are or are planning to ensure that their air wings are able to efficiently and effectively operate in a blue water or contested littoral environment?"

A proper COD capability out to 1000+ miles with a platform capable of taking a F35 engine (albeit on a special cradle) is a start. They also have plenty of F18s in their CAGs which can pump gas if needed, extending their strike range and to do EW support for "Day 2" onwards ops when you may wish to use the F35 as more of a bomb truck. They also have E2Cs which can put a radar 10-15 000 ft higher than a Merlin, can stay on task for hours and can roulement quickly at 240+kts. Finally, as they operate Cats n Traps, they can design from scratch new capabilities (UCAV/UAV Tankers etc) or, if worse came to worse, drag a load of jets out of AMARC and put them back into service. It's almost as if they take carrier aviation seriously rather than order a couple of 65 000 ton cod pieces and re-arrange the lego set to "kinda" make it look right....

FWIW, there is still significant disquiet in the USN over the loss of the strike range / payload capability afforded by the A-6 (and, in extremis, the S-2 and F-14...) from their Air Wings. By our standards, a "first Navy problem..."! https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/194448/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf

[ORAC]

And the A-5 Vigilante - which had a ZFW 2000lb less than the F-35C....

[Mortmeister]

All this talk of 'Cats and traps' is all very well. How are you going to power the catapult? We have no steam ships any more and I'm pretty sure QNLZ would not be able to produce enough steam with her power generation set-up to facilitate a decent sortie rate.
You cannot hold up the USS Gerald R. Ford as an example for us, because it generates the power from two'hoofing' nuclear reactors! I believe even they struggled initially. There is no way on this earth we could ever have afforded a nuclear CV.

Let's be sensible, what we have is most likely the optimum solution for UK PLC.

[EricsLad]

ICCALS would do the steam catapult bit. Savings For Backfit Of FireCat to Nimitz catapults - Current ICCALS Presentation (http://www.launch-systems.com/)

[Pontius Navigator]

You cannot hold up the USS Gerald R. Ford as an example for us, because it generates the power from two'hoofing' nuclear reactors! I believe even they struggled initially.

Glad you mentioned power.

There is no way on this earth we could ever have afforded a nuclear CV.

Of course we could. We couldn't afford two CV in operation. Now we are. We are building nuclear powered submarines, no reason why we could not build CVN. What is needed is compromise.

Some years ago the Captain of Ark Royal reckoned that the capacity of a modern CV was one aircraft per 1,000 tons. On that basis he said the QE could have 65 aircraft. Clearly we have compromised - big carrier, smaller air group.

[Engines]

ORAC (and others),

Perhaps I can help a little here. I was part of the weight reduction effort for the F-35B. To the best of my memory, the plumbing for external tanks on the inboard pylons was NOT removed. I don't remember it ever being offered, as the requirement for the capability to carry what were often referred to as 'ferry' tanks was clearly stated in the Systems Requirement Document (SRD). When I left the programme a long time back, that hadn't changed, as far as I remember. If I'm wrong, or if this has changed since, I apologise in advance. It's true that the requirement to develop and integrate the external tanks was subsequently deferred and may have been cancelled since. But I think the plumbing is still there.

I don't ever remember a centreline tank being seriously considered.

In the very early days when they were introduced in WW2 for escort fighters, 'drop tanks' were specifically designed to be jettisoned on all missions, when empty or when combat was required. Fairly quickly, especially on naval aircraft (e.g. Corsair, Hellcat) the 'drop' tanks were often retained on the aircraft - it's possible that the problems of shipping more tanks to the ships influenced that decision. Since then almost all 'drop' tanks on tactical jet fighter bombers (land or sea based) have not been designed to be 'dropped' on a regular basis. What they actually did was to solve the basic limitations in range and endurance common to almost all tactical jet aircraft. 'Drop' tanks are an easy fix to the conundrum of how to carry more fuel when there's no space left inside the airframe.

The F-35 never required drop tanks to allow it to meet performance requirements, which is (probably) why the designation of 'ferry' tanks was used. If the RN (or USMC or USN) were to come up with a need for using external tanks on board, I'm fairly certain that they would embark one set per aircraft plus a few sets of spares. I would also offer the view that the size of the QE class would make stowage of extra tanks a fairly straightforward issue. A standard technique is to hoist them up into the hangar deckhead (ceiling) on a special cradle. There seems to be a bit of room for that option on the QE. We certainly managed it on the CVS and than was an extremely small ship.

Hope this helps the thread, best regards as ever to all those doing and redoing the range and endurance calculations as things change,

Engines

[ORAC]

Just for information, found elsewhere (all of it, including that below the quoted contrac5 part).

Contracts NAVY
April 28, 2006

"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $52,400,000 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) to exercise an option to certify the small diameter bomb for the U. S. Air Force Joint Strike Fighter conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft and eliminate the effort for wind corrected munitions dispenser and external fuel tanks (http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_nkw=fuel+tanks)...."

A short history of external tanks with the F-35 program re: what would be qualified as stores at the end of SDD.

The original assumption is that they would use legacy F-18 tanks like the conventional shape shown above. Once they got into simulation and later wind tunnel models doing stores separation they ran into problems. The conventional tank showed to be high risk for bumping into the aircraft and/or other stores.

So they came up with 3 elongated tear-drop designs. (see the graphic in the Sep 2006 brief). These carried a bit less fuel but were supposed to offer a solution. However in the same kinds of simulations there were still problems. There is a brief out there somewhere that shows quite the pitch-up of the tear-drop design coming way too close to the aircraft after being punched off. There were still risk issues of external store separation scenarios; for example when also carrying a 2000lb bomb on the nearby station. Of the three elongated tear-drop candidates the one that showed the most promise was one that had an extension on the pylon.

Eventually they decided that there was too much risk/time/money invested for now and pulled external tanks from SDD as per that April 2006 contract which also removed WCMD (for instance CBU-105). And of course that same contract added SDB for SDD......

Not long after; briefs started touting the idea that you don't need external tanks compared to legacy. I am sure that went to the plus side for MX calculations too as you don't need extra people/manhours to clean and maintain external tanks on a deployment if your jet can't carry them. Maybe we will see them someday after SDD. Who knows?.......

[George K Lee]

As explained at the time, tanks didn't do much for the A & C, which had 18-19 klb internal fuel already and a larger fuel fraction (internal fuel to clean TOW) than most fighters. The B, however, has a fuel fraction of about 0.3, which is similar to many modern aircraft (Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale for instance).

Engines is right to say that tanks are not to be dropped on a regular basis. However, the option is there, in extremis - for instance, a CAP may be flown with tanks and the tanks dropped if an actual adversary heaves into sight, or strikers may drop weapons and tanks if engaged unexpectedly. It's about the only way to achieve more than 500nm radius, even with a light load, on a supersonic high-g fighter, and the only way to go anywhere with a heavy load.

It's a bit more complicated on a stealth aircraft because tanks are not stealthy. Even if you can drop tanks and be fully stealthy afterwards (meaning that you lose the tank and the pylon, as in the F-22) you have to determine when to dump the tanks based on when you might be detected. That would often be very early in the mission. I don't think that the F-35 has the pylon-dropping option.

0.3 fuel fraction and no external option is not that much, so long over-water ferries are always going to be a bit of a production for the B.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/900x643/f_22_fuel_tanks_jettison_b744a5e2e437c2010a94449bfb6cb6d9f4e 98fca.jpg

[Not_a_boffin]

Some years ago the Captain of Ark Royal reckoned that the capacity of a modern CV was one aircraft per 1,000 tons. On that basis he said the QE could have 65 aircraft. Clearly we have compromised - big carrier, smaller air group.

There are caveats to that. If we really wanted to - and bought enough aircraft - you could fit 60-ish on the deck and hangar. But operating them would require extensive deck manoeuvres, which means lots more bodies, which means lots more accommodation. You could reduce the accommodation standard and cram more people aboard, but it's people that cost, hence the big ship to allow a relatively small number of people to operate up to 40 cabs.

The old Ark (IV) managed around 36 cabs on 56000 te - so quite a bit more than 1000te/cab - and required 2500 crew.

As for cats - the design still included provision for boiler rooms until at least 2007 (nigh-on cutting steel). EMALS provision was made in the power architecture, but somewhat hampered by both the IT*R status of the kit (and hence access to info) and level of maturity at that time. There's enough wiggly amps (nigh on 120MW) of installed generating capacity to cover off the propulsion load (80MW) and still leave a lot for electrical services....

[DroneDog]

OK. I have only the vaguest notion of Cats and Traps but 2 Billion quid to retrofit as a system, really!!

Let us say I have the UK's checkbook, surely if we purchased the hydraulic bits needed for the Traps of the USA I would budget that at £10 million per carrier.
Now the steam generation system is way more complex, but Older UK non-nuclear carriers had steam catapults, let us say £150 million to fit this.

Could it be that simple, what have I missed?

[sandiego89]

OK. I have only the vaguest notion of Cats and Traps but 2 Billion quid to retrofit as a system, really!!

Let us say I have the UK's checkbook, surely if we purchased the hydraulic bits needed for the Traps of the USA I would budget that at £10 million per carrier.
Now the steam generation system is way more complex, but Older UK non-nuclear carriers had steam catapults, let us say £150 million to fit this.

Could it be that simple, what have I missed?

A few things you may have missed:
-The older UK carriers had steam boilers that were used for both ships propulsion and the catapults (and power generation). The new QE class has gas turbine propulsion, so no steam. A steam catapult would require an entire steam generation and piping system (which was mused, but not fitted). EMALS was also studied but would have been massively expensive (and risky)
-Add a few zeros to the price of the arresting gear.
-Catapults and arresting gear require much more manning and maintenance than a flat deck and ski jump. Factor in the additional costs for the additional crew, their housing ashore, pensions, medical, training.... Factor in routine maintenance (intensive), periodic refit, and major overhaul of the catapult and arresting systems throughout the life of the carriers.

[PDR1]

There is also the detail of where on the ship you're going to install all that plant - neither option is exactly compact. The size of the steam plant tends to get overlooked because current systems share steam plant with the propulsion system, but people seem to think the electrical system is small. It isn't, of course, because it needs something to store and deliver the energy. The most effective solution appears to be large flywheel-alternators which are spun up (slowly) with motors from the electrical system and then essentially shorted out by the cat which draws the energy out in a few seconds. These flywheel alternators are huge, highly stressed and have massive gyroscopic moments which need to be accommodated in the mounting structure. They're not the sort of thing which can be tucked behind the shower in the chief engineer's cabin.

PDR

[Herod]

I've heard stories of what's tucked behind the shower in the Chief Engineer's cabin. Now, where's Roger, the Cabin Boy?

[A and C]

What chance of this going well when the British military can’t seem to operate a simple winch launched glider............ ship, catapult, advanced jet.......... I don’t see it ending well.

[PDR1]

I've heard stories of what's tucked behind the shower in the Chief Engineer's cabin. Now, where's Roger, the Cabin Boy?

He's doing a personal development task with Seaman Staynes

PDR

[Davef68]

The decision to go for STOVL was really fixed at decision point - the design was originally designed with either/or options, and that it could in future be amended for CATOBAR (Not least because Thales etc hoped to sell the design to the French). That was in 2002/3 but once the Uk decided to go STOVL the naval architects started designing the details to work that way, so parts that may have initially been intended to hold catapult or arrestor equipment became used for other things - the idea that there were these voids in the hull, just waiting for the change of mind in 2010, or a future refit, sadly didn't match the reality as the engineers and architects designed and built the ship in practice. So it would never be a 'quick change' - not least, think on all the 100s of schematics and plans that would have to be redrawn.

[Heathrow Harry]

The decision to go for STOVL was really fixed at decision point - the design was originally designed with either/or options, and that it could in future be amended for CATOBAR (Not least because Thales etc hoped to sell the design to the French). That was in 2002/3 but once the Uk decided to go STOVL the naval architects started designing the details to work that way, so parts that may have initially been intended to hold catapult or arrestor equipment became used for other things - the idea that there were these voids in the hull, just waiting for the change of mind in 2010, or a future refit, sadly didn't match the reality as the engineers and architects designed and built the ship in practice. So it would never be a 'quick change' - not least, think on all the 100s of schematics and plans that would have to be redrawn.
easy.."find".... "replace"........

[cafesolo]

cafesolo
age 83
new here
Cabin boy in Spanish "grumete"-- Larousse Concise. Wonder where that came from.

[ORAC]

Grommet?

”A ring of rubber designed to line a hole to prevent a pipe passed through it from chafing.”........