Future Carrier (Including Costs)
The design is long enough to do F35C cat n trap, but until a final decision is made on the aircraft, a ski-jump and no wires is the fit. Provision is made in the design for fitting both cats and wires, but it would need to be either in at build or at major refit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reasonably sure the Aeronavale had similar issues with the CDG flight deck which had to be lengthened
to accept the E-2. The F-35 Carrier Variant makes better sense than this VTOL madness. Is QuinetiQ
still hammering away with the VAAC Harrier trying to perfect the Rolling Vertical Landing ?
to accept the E-2. The F-35 Carrier Variant makes better sense than this VTOL madness. Is QuinetiQ
still hammering away with the VAAC Harrier trying to perfect the Rolling Vertical Landing ?
F-35B or F-35C
The trouble with doing away with the 'Dave B' is that it completely negates the purpose of the F-35 programme.
If the requirement for the JSF had not included STOVL, then the aircraft would have looked completely different, and may well have been twin-engined. The STOVL requirement completely drives the need for a single (humongous) engine, which in turn drives the fuselage shape, and amongst other things determines that there can't be a central weapons bay.
If the F-35 is abandoned - and the USMC requirement may well be not enough to keep it alive - then the entire programme is very obviously a complete waste of time and money, producing an aircraft with design compromises that are suddenly completely irrelevant to its revised CONOPS.
Hence, there will be a great deal of pressure for the UK to "keep the faith" with the F-35B.
If the requirement for the JSF had not included STOVL, then the aircraft would have looked completely different, and may well have been twin-engined. The STOVL requirement completely drives the need for a single (humongous) engine, which in turn drives the fuselage shape, and amongst other things determines that there can't be a central weapons bay.
If the F-35 is abandoned - and the USMC requirement may well be not enough to keep it alive - then the entire programme is very obviously a complete waste of time and money, producing an aircraft with design compromises that are suddenly completely irrelevant to its revised CONOPS.
Hence, there will be a great deal of pressure for the UK to "keep the faith" with the F-35B.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what realistic pressure can be applied. Granted that the whole design philosophy is no longer appropriate, but that isn't our problem - the carrier version would practically suit us far better. Surely the Navy senior people understand that quite well. Presumably the carrier version is still about the same cost - but far better for us - and possibly available sooner.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royalist
Strangely, the purchase price will be more for the "C" (though long term through life can only be cheaper) and it will be a lot later availability.
Though I do agree that it would be a far better option.
Strangely, the purchase price will be more for the "C" (though long term through life can only be cheaper) and it will be a lot later availability.
Though I do agree that it would be a far better option.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Okay - but I don't think I quite understand why the carrier version would be more expensive: Granted it must have a strengthened fuselage/U/C etc., but it doesn't have the very expensive engine vectoring or fan. Also, I accept that it may be later - but why? Is it necessarily so? I haven't seen an American list of priority deliveries although I assume there is one. However given that it is later - and given our present government's habit of putting things off to avoid immediate outgoings - may the later dater be more appropriate. One assumes that adding the ski jump and catapult would add time to the carrier build anyway.
Okay - but I don't think I quite understand why the carrier version would be more expensive: Granted it must have a strengthened fuselage/U/C etc., but it doesn't have the very expensive engine vectoring or fan. Also, I accept that it may be later - but why? Is it necessarily so? I haven't seen an American list of priority deliveries although I assume there is one. However given that it is later - and given our present government's habit of putting things off to avoid immediate outgoings - may the later dater be more appropriate. One assumes that adding the ski jump and catapult would add time to the carrier build anyway.
She'll be built with the ski-jump, cats are the alternative and unless a decision was made right now, would probably delay the ship. Probably too late now for QE anyway, although do-able for PoW.
Kiwi - I'm pretty sure the USAF F35A requirement would mean single engine as well, it's not just the lift-fan, it's the perceived cost benefit of single engine jets.
Kiwi - I'm pretty sure the USAF F35A requirement would mean single engine as well, it's not just the lift-fan, it's the perceived cost benefit of single engine jets.
Thread Starter
I thought the through life costs of operating the C version (cats, traps, and larger flight deck crews) were a factor in opting for the B version. Not to mention training issues.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Boffin,
I bow to your superior knowledge re. Skyhook, though I still think it had some very good elements.
If we were still operating SeaJets, I might put up more of an argument !
Heinz Frick has a very good sense of humour ( e-mail me and I can send a photo' to prove it ) but please don't call him Herr just because he has Swiss Ancestry.
I would reckon he's flown off a good few ships in his time, and if you remember the Lightning which is now gate guardian at Boscombe, he used that on his last day there for a low supersonic run, breaking windows all around; his boss saw the funny side, so just presented him with the repair bill !
When on early Harrier GR5 trials at West Freugh, we had a large pile of Mk82 inert bombs to get through; after weeks of being grounded, either by weather or snags reported from the AV-8B programme, Heinz finally did a few bombing runs, within sight of we groundcrew.
As he taxied back in, we stood in a row with number plates from the aircraft tugs and held them up as score-cards*, to which we received a vigorous V sign from the cockpit !(* my idea, but when Heinz asked later, a crawler from Flight Test claimed credit - good luck, J...).
I bow to your superior knowledge re. Skyhook, though I still think it had some very good elements.
If we were still operating SeaJets, I might put up more of an argument !
Heinz Frick has a very good sense of humour ( e-mail me and I can send a photo' to prove it ) but please don't call him Herr just because he has Swiss Ancestry.
I would reckon he's flown off a good few ships in his time, and if you remember the Lightning which is now gate guardian at Boscombe, he used that on his last day there for a low supersonic run, breaking windows all around; his boss saw the funny side, so just presented him with the repair bill !
When on early Harrier GR5 trials at West Freugh, we had a large pile of Mk82 inert bombs to get through; after weeks of being grounded, either by weather or snags reported from the AV-8B programme, Heinz finally did a few bombing runs, within sight of we groundcrew.
As he taxied back in, we stood in a row with number plates from the aircraft tugs and held them up as score-cards*, to which we received a vigorous V sign from the cockpit !(* my idea, but when Heinz asked later, a crawler from Flight Test claimed credit - good luck, J...).
NaB - Sadly the F-35A and F-35C would have cost much less to develop, had as much thrust and weighed less had they been designed with a pair of F414s. And EJ200 could have been a built-in alternative engine.
No argument from me LO - but AFAIK the single-engine direction originated with the CALF/SSF requirement way back when. ISTR the USN had got themselves firmly wedded to 2 engines = better survivability (despite SLUF and Scooter) and took some persuading that going back to single was a good idea.
175kN is a lot of thrust to put through one unit..........
Pulse - you're not wrong, putting steam back into the surface fleet after ~15yrs wouldn't be easy, nor would fitting the dedicated steam plants into an AMR, assuming one can get a pair of sufficiently robust plants to fill the accumulators. You'd almost think someone had bet the farm on EMALS........
DZ - Seajet, F35, even F14s or Hellcats fitted with some sort of anti-gravity device - it makes no difference. It's not the aircraft - it's the inefficiency of operating f/w in penny-packets combined with the impact on topsides. No slight intended on Heinz Frick - suspect he had to have a sense of humour once "Allo Allo" aired on UK TV!
175kN is a lot of thrust to put through one unit..........
Pulse - you're not wrong, putting steam back into the surface fleet after ~15yrs wouldn't be easy, nor would fitting the dedicated steam plants into an AMR, assuming one can get a pair of sufficiently robust plants to fill the accumulators. You'd almost think someone had bet the farm on EMALS........
DZ - Seajet, F35, even F14s or Hellcats fitted with some sort of anti-gravity device - it makes no difference. It's not the aircraft - it's the inefficiency of operating f/w in penny-packets combined with the impact on topsides. No slight intended on Heinz Frick - suspect he had to have a sense of humour once "Allo Allo" aired on UK TV!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Tourist
Strangely, the purchase price will be more for the "C"
I/C
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyhook
Ian,
The Sea Harrier has indeed got anti-gravity devices ( not paint of Area 51 UFO technology, still trying to prise that out of the secret lab's at Dulux & the USAF ).
However there are two highly hushed up things I probably shouldn't be mentioning here;
one's called light weight, especially if compared to the other Naval aircraft you mention.
The other's called Pegasus with vectored thrust!
The Sea Harrier has indeed got anti-gravity devices ( not paint of Area 51 UFO technology, still trying to prise that out of the secret lab's at Dulux & the USAF ).
However there are two highly hushed up things I probably shouldn't be mentioning here;
one's called light weight, especially if compared to the other Naval aircraft you mention.
The other's called Pegasus with vectored thrust!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catapults
Does anyone know the current status of the EMALS catapult. I understand they are/were under consideration for the new carriers as late as last year - when the discussion about using the carrier version of the F-35 came up. They don't need steam or water and should take relatively little below deck space (lots of electricity though).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know the current status of the EMALS catapult. I understand they are/were under consideration for the new carriers as late as last year - when the discussion about using the carrier version of the F-35 came up. They don't need steam or water and should take relathe launchtively little below deck space (lots of electricity though).
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Does anyone know the current status of the EMALS catapult.
General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems division (GA-EMS) was awarded a $675.2 million contract action (UCA) by the Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. for the production of the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for the CVN 78 aircraft carrier.
This contract action modifies the $573 million NTE UCA received by GA-EMS on June 30, 2009 for the production of the EMALS ship set to also include the production of AAG.
Both systems will be installed on CVN 78, now in the early stages of construction at Northrop Grumman’s shipyard in Newport News, Va. EMALS is the electromagnetic catapult launch system replacing the steam catapults used on prior generations of aircraft carriers. The AAG is a turbo-electric system that replaces the existing Mark 7 mechanical aircraft recovery system.
The work will be performed in San Diego, Calif.; Tupelo, Miss.; Mankato, Minn.; Waltham, Mass.; Mount Pleasant, Penn.; Aston, Penn. and other various locations across the United States. The contract will complete in fiscal year 2014.
“General Atomics recommended a fixed-priced contract approach, demonstrating our confidence in meeting the CVN 78 schedule and also reflecting our confidence in the technology successfully meeting the design specifications,” stated Division Vice President R. Scott Forney III. “We are well into procurement of CVN 78 EMALS hardware and manufacturing of the earliest required shipboard hardware. This UCA will now allow GA to work quickly with our suppliers to order long-lead material to support CVN 78 key milestones for the AAG”.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't high power magnetism
A, have nasty effect on crew,
B, make the ship go invisible according to 'The Phillidelphia Experiment' ?
This would make it a bugger to land on !
A, have nasty effect on crew,
B, make the ship go invisible according to 'The Phillidelphia Experiment' ?
This would make it a bugger to land on !
