Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The escorts are not being made utterly extinct, so the corn-seed of experience is still there and their numbers can be regenerated with relatively little a-do once the finances have revived a little (ref. 'rolling review').
Our extensive carrier ops experience should be guarded from being zero-timed for the sake of short term sensibilities.
Our extensive carrier ops experience should be guarded from being zero-timed for the sake of short term sensibilities.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One that doesn't carry a separate lift fan as dead weight during flight would be a good start.
Once that's been cracked maybe we could have some RAM paint that isn't going to stop being RAM when it comes into contact with austere conditions.
Once that's been cracked maybe we could have some RAM paint that isn't going to stop being RAM when it comes into contact with austere conditions.
Last edited by Hedgeporker; 9th Oct 2010 at 20:47. Reason: grammar.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The escorts are not being made utterly extinct, so the corn-seed of experience is still there and their numbers can be regenerated with relatively little a-do once the finances have revived a little (ref. 'rolling review').
Our extensive carrier ops experience should be guarded from being zero-timed for the sake of short term sensibilities.
Our extensive carrier ops experience should be guarded from being zero-timed for the sake of short term sensibilities.
The escorts won't be forthcoming anytime short of the year 3000, anybody banking on an economic recovery that will allow HM Forces to expand back to anything like previous levels is, quite frankly, living in cloud cuckoo land. The government is actually proposing drastic cuts in social services and benefits - these are guaranteed vote losers (chopping the forces, on the other hand, is seldom a vote loser except for times of actual war).
For things to be this bad there is no way reinvestment in the forces is going to occur anytime soon. If it weren't for Afghanistan I suspect our front line would be composed entirely of CCF cadets, the ATC, and a few of the more feral boy scout troops.
So now it comes down to a simple question of which you can afford to lose - CV capability or FF/DD (and smaller). If your budget runs to 2 carriers or several dozen corvette/frigate sized vessels and you can only have one or the other for the forseeable future, then I honestly don't see how you can go for the CV option. Unless, of course, you are an Admiral and want to throw cocktail parties while Rome burns.
As for operating outside a land based air umbrella - it only works if you have a whole bunch of carriers, otherwise the loss of even a single deck reduces the TG to defensive ops.
Bah, it's all blindingly bloody obvious, does nobody read any history?
Dave
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The leaks and rumours coming out of the SDR have all, without exception, been towards a cheaper aircraft than STOVL F35 B and in favour of CATOBAR.
If I was a betting man I'd say 50-80 F35 C is what UK will end up with.
If I was a betting man I'd say 50-80 F35 C is what UK will end up with.
Last edited by oldnotbold; 9th Oct 2010 at 22:16.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short term? we're looking at DECADES -have you seen the mess our economy is in?
The escorts won't be forthcoming anytime short of the year 3000, anybody banking on an economic recovery that will allow HM Forces to expand back to anything like previous levels is, quite frankly, living in cloud cuckoo land. The government is actually proposing drastic cuts in social services and benefits - these are guaranteed vote losers (chopping the forces, on the other hand, is seldom a vote loser except for times of actual war).
For things to be this bad there is no way reinvestment in the forces is going to occur anytime soon. If it weren't for Afghanistan I suspect our front line would be composed entirely of CCF cadets, the ATC, and a few of the more feral boy scout troops.
So now it comes down to a simple question of which you can afford to lose - CV capability or FF/DD (and smaller). If your budget runs to 2 carriers or several dozen corvette/frigate sized vessels and you can only have one or the other for the forseeable future, then I honestly don't see how you can go for the CV option. Unless, of course, you are an Admiral and want to throw cocktail parties while Rome burns.
As for operating outside a land based air umbrella - it only works if you have a whole bunch of carriers, otherwise the loss of even a single deck reduces the TG to defensive ops.
Bah, it's all blindingly bloody obvious, does nobody read any history?
Dave
The escorts won't be forthcoming anytime short of the year 3000, anybody banking on an economic recovery that will allow HM Forces to expand back to anything like previous levels is, quite frankly, living in cloud cuckoo land. The government is actually proposing drastic cuts in social services and benefits - these are guaranteed vote losers (chopping the forces, on the other hand, is seldom a vote loser except for times of actual war).
For things to be this bad there is no way reinvestment in the forces is going to occur anytime soon. If it weren't for Afghanistan I suspect our front line would be composed entirely of CCF cadets, the ATC, and a few of the more feral boy scout troops.
So now it comes down to a simple question of which you can afford to lose - CV capability or FF/DD (and smaller). If your budget runs to 2 carriers or several dozen corvette/frigate sized vessels and you can only have one or the other for the forseeable future, then I honestly don't see how you can go for the CV option. Unless, of course, you are an Admiral and want to throw cocktail parties while Rome burns.
As for operating outside a land based air umbrella - it only works if you have a whole bunch of carriers, otherwise the loss of even a single deck reduces the TG to defensive ops.
Bah, it's all blindingly bloody obvious, does nobody read any history?
Dave
Having only history to go by, I think that the chances of a conflict coming along shortly to force investment in the services are rather high, given our relationship with the world's resources.
Deep war will be waged by the control of access to supplies, and if we're to contend with the emergent navies (who are getting carriers) using a navy made up of escorts and a few submarines then we may as well not bother.
Last edited by Hedgeporker; 9th Oct 2010 at 22:22.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it weren't for Afghanistan I suspect our front line would be composed entirely of CCF cadets, the ATC, and a few of the more feral boy scout troops.
A good reason to keep the British Army in Afgoonistan, don't you agree?
As long as they're there, the Army stays in being.
Royal Navy -- too long since its last war.
////////////////////
Lift fan versus direct or directed lift used on the Harrier and on Boeing's F-35 prototype:
Lift fan affords
(1) More fluid momentum for same energy input;
(2) Better matching of lift fan propulsor exhaust velocity to characteristic velocity needed for hover or vertical climb -- i.e. slower exhaust velocity;
(3) Much better and more compact design of engine with afterburner (reheat) module;
(4) Normal sized air intakes instead of overly large diameter intakes -- less drag and less radar reflections off compressor blades.
A good reason to keep the British Army in Afgoonistan, don't you agree?
As long as they're there, the Army stays in being.
Royal Navy -- too long since its last war.
////////////////////
Lift fan versus direct or directed lift used on the Harrier and on Boeing's F-35 prototype:
Lift fan affords
(1) More fluid momentum for same energy input;
(2) Better matching of lift fan propulsor exhaust velocity to characteristic velocity needed for hover or vertical climb -- i.e. slower exhaust velocity;
(3) Much better and more compact design of engine with afterburner (reheat) module;
(4) Normal sized air intakes instead of overly large diameter intakes -- less drag and less radar reflections off compressor blades.
Last edited by Modern Elmo; 10th Oct 2010 at 00:41.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lift fan versus direct or directed lift used on the Harrier and on Boeing's F-35 prototype:
Lift fan affords
(1) More fluid momentum for same energy input;
(2) Better matching of lift fan propulsor exhaust velocity to characteristic velocity needed for hover or vertical climb -- i.e. slower exhaust velocity;
(3) Much better and more compact design of engine with afterburner (reheat) module;
(4) Normal sized air intakes instead of overly large diameter intakes -- less drag and less radar reflections off compressor blades.
Lift fan affords
(1) More fluid momentum for same energy input;
(2) Better matching of lift fan propulsor exhaust velocity to characteristic velocity needed for hover or vertical climb -- i.e. slower exhaust velocity;
(3) Much better and more compact design of engine with afterburner (reheat) module;
(4) Normal sized air intakes instead of overly large diameter intakes -- less drag and less radar reflections off compressor blades.
The idea of transporting dead weight still rankles but I'll hold my peace until I'm more educated. Now what about the overly precious RAM paint?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now that the decision has been made to go for a conventional carrier, the decision comes down to choosing between the F-35C and the FA-18E/F/G, and that is not as clear cut as it may seem.
The USN continues to buy F-18s in multi-year buys, which thus reduces the eventual buy of the F-35C and increases it's cost; and the latest buy has the F-18s being bought at a price of just under $43 million each.
Whilst the F-35 has better sensors, it is not significantly superior in performance, and of course has only 1 engine as against 2. The stealth, using only the internal weapons bay, is of significance if penetrating enemy defences on the first day of war. Is that,however, an ability the RN needs at the added cost?
The UK has paid it's cash to get it's industrial participation in the JSF programme, so which it buys should not matter much.
Pragmatically, I would suggest to you that for the same money you could buy either around 60+ F-35Cs just for the RN, or 120+ to equip the entire planned RN/RAF force; or just buy 60+ and cost the cost.
The USN continues to buy F-18s in multi-year buys, which thus reduces the eventual buy of the F-35C and increases it's cost; and the latest buy has the F-18s being bought at a price of just under $43 million each.
Whilst the F-35 has better sensors, it is not significantly superior in performance, and of course has only 1 engine as against 2. The stealth, using only the internal weapons bay, is of significance if penetrating enemy defences on the first day of war. Is that,however, an ability the RN needs at the added cost?
The UK has paid it's cash to get it's industrial participation in the JSF programme, so which it buys should not matter much.
Pragmatically, I would suggest to you that for the same money you could buy either around 60+ F-35Cs just for the RN, or 120+ to equip the entire planned RN/RAF force; or just buy 60+ and cost the cost.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the decision has been made to go for a conventional carrier, the decision comes down to choosing between the F-35C and the FA-18E/F/G, and that is not as clear cut as it may seem.
Lockheed gets funds for UK F-35 landing modification
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, unless you're claiming the Prime Minister is a liar?
It would be a criminal waste of taxpayers money to let contracts relating to SRVLs if a decision to abandon F-35B has already been made.
ME - All true in theory, but in practice offset (to some extent) by the weight of the fan and transmission, cover doors, and the oversized main engine LP turbine and shaft needed to drive the fan.
The LPLC arrangement proposed by MDC would probably have performed better and at lower cost, because the main engine would be simpler and the lift-fan engine would have been no more expensive than the shaft-fan and probably lighter: the lift-fan assembly itself has a T/W of about 9:1, and back in the 1970s RR was designing lift fans with much lower exhaust velocity/higher BPR and T/Ws of 11:1 - a fan scaled to JSF would be somewhere between that and the 20:1 of the XJ99 lift jet.
And there were a lot of concepts in the late 80s. early 90s, like REX/Cactus, that would have worked well for a less-stealthy aircraft. However, the Pentagon was sold on the idea that they could get the full-Monty LO characteristics for the same money via a three-service aircraft and the rest is history.
The LPLC arrangement proposed by MDC would probably have performed better and at lower cost, because the main engine would be simpler and the lift-fan engine would have been no more expensive than the shaft-fan and probably lighter: the lift-fan assembly itself has a T/W of about 9:1, and back in the 1970s RR was designing lift fans with much lower exhaust velocity/higher BPR and T/Ws of 11:1 - a fan scaled to JSF would be somewhere between that and the 20:1 of the XJ99 lift jet.
And there were a lot of concepts in the late 80s. early 90s, like REX/Cactus, that would have worked well for a less-stealthy aircraft. However, the Pentagon was sold on the idea that they could get the full-Monty LO characteristics for the same money via a three-service aircraft and the rest is history.
Cracking post. Incisive and very funny.
F-35C isn't any cheaper than F-35B. International Roadmap Super Hornet would be. Or Rafale M. But if you go CATOBAR you go to a force that will effectively only ever go to sea or train for going to sea. (The old it's easier to stop then land, than land then stop aphorism means that switching from land-to-sea and vice versa is much easier with STOVL - especially with a STOVL jet that's VAAC-ing easy to fly like the F-35B.
Short term? we're looking at DECADES -have you seen the mess our economy is in?
The escorts won't be forthcoming anytime short of the year 3000, anybody banking on an economic recovery that will allow HM Forces to expand back to anything like previous levels is, quite frankly, living in cloud cuckoo land. The government is actually proposing drastic cuts in social services and benefits - these are guaranteed vote losers (chopping the forces, on the other hand, is seldom a vote loser except for times of actual war).
For things to be this bad there is no way reinvestment in the forces is going to occur anytime soon. If it weren't for Afghanistan I suspect our front line would be composed entirely of CCF cadets, the ATC, and a few of the more feral boy scout troops.
So now it comes down to a simple question of which you can afford to lose - CV capability or FF/DD (and smaller). If your budget runs to 2 carriers or several dozen corvette/frigate sized vessels and you can only have one or the other for the forseeable future, then I honestly don't see how you can go for the CV option. Unless, of course, you are an Admiral and want to throw cocktail parties while Rome burns.
As for operating outside a land based air umbrella - it only works if you have a whole bunch of carriers, otherwise the loss of even a single deck reduces the TG to defensive ops.
Bah, it's all blindingly bloody obvious, does nobody read any history?
Dave
The escorts won't be forthcoming anytime short of the year 3000, anybody banking on an economic recovery that will allow HM Forces to expand back to anything like previous levels is, quite frankly, living in cloud cuckoo land. The government is actually proposing drastic cuts in social services and benefits - these are guaranteed vote losers (chopping the forces, on the other hand, is seldom a vote loser except for times of actual war).
For things to be this bad there is no way reinvestment in the forces is going to occur anytime soon. If it weren't for Afghanistan I suspect our front line would be composed entirely of CCF cadets, the ATC, and a few of the more feral boy scout troops.
So now it comes down to a simple question of which you can afford to lose - CV capability or FF/DD (and smaller). If your budget runs to 2 carriers or several dozen corvette/frigate sized vessels and you can only have one or the other for the forseeable future, then I honestly don't see how you can go for the CV option. Unless, of course, you are an Admiral and want to throw cocktail parties while Rome burns.
As for operating outside a land based air umbrella - it only works if you have a whole bunch of carriers, otherwise the loss of even a single deck reduces the TG to defensive ops.
Bah, it's all blindingly bloody obvious, does nobody read any history?
Dave
The leaks and rumours coming out of the SDR have all, without exception, been towards a cheaper aircraft than STOVL F35 B and in favour of CATOBAR.
If I was a betting man I'd say 50-80 F35 C is what UK will end up with.
If I was a betting man I'd say 50-80 F35 C is what UK will end up with.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35C isn't any cheaper than F-35B.
I'll believe the hype about Low Observability + Austere conditions when USAF groundies stop wearing cotton gloves and overshoes when crawling over RAM coated aircraft (which live in conditions that are anything but austere).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am basically an F-35B fan, for reasons of 'stop then land' and austere FOB use etc.
However I did read pretty worrying descriptions of the 'B', with it's very high velocity and temperature efflux / blast, requiring carrier deck crew to courageuosly shuffle heat pads under the nasty bits, and 'austere' operations at FOB's only possible from special concrete pads, so forget quick rough strip op's !
I have been away for a while so please excuse me as these points have probably been covered, but any truth in this, or as I rather suspect pro-Model C, F-18 etc propaganda ?!
Thanks in anticipation, DZ
However I did read pretty worrying descriptions of the 'B', with it's very high velocity and temperature efflux / blast, requiring carrier deck crew to courageuosly shuffle heat pads under the nasty bits, and 'austere' operations at FOB's only possible from special concrete pads, so forget quick rough strip op's !
I have been away for a while so please excuse me as these points have probably been covered, but any truth in this, or as I rather suspect pro-Model C, F-18 etc propaganda ?!
Thanks in anticipation, DZ
Last edited by Double Zero; 11th Oct 2010 at 11:24.