Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Occasional Aviator,
I get the gist of your post, contacts like that ( I'm assuming you are who you say you are, no offence ! ) - are worth a lot more than press releases or'leaks'.
I will say though it seems that 'just fitting catapults arrestors / barriers' has been wilfully made to sound like a cheap 5 minute job; wheras it's really serious, Brunel or Captain Kirk type engineering & costs...
One thing I haven't personally seen mentioned is the operational weather envelopes of say F-35 B versus C, though of course both will have wonder-kit guidance.
The limitations mentioned on the 'B' do sound like a bother though, but then it's still in development, look at the P-1127...
I get the gist of your post, contacts like that ( I'm assuming you are who you say you are, no offence ! ) - are worth a lot more than press releases or'leaks'.
I will say though it seems that 'just fitting catapults arrestors / barriers' has been wilfully made to sound like a cheap 5 minute job; wheras it's really serious, Brunel or Captain Kirk type engineering & costs...
One thing I haven't personally seen mentioned is the operational weather envelopes of say F-35 B versus C, though of course both will have wonder-kit guidance.
The limitations mentioned on the 'B' do sound like a bother though, but then it's still in development, look at the P-1127...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'm on my little F-35 hobby horse ( last for a while, promise ! ) - much is made of the point that having a cat 'n trap carrier would allow use of things like Hawkeyes and commonality with other Navies.
I can only agree re. the commonality bit ( but how much use would it REALLY be apart from the French ); but as for AEW, if half the claims for the F-35 made are true, couldn't it supply an AEW link, probably with buddy AAR ?
I've also seen some quite staggering mentions of the F-35's kit, in the public domain but only briefly - to the extent I'll not mention such here.
Still, I really, really need an Aston Martin for essential self esteem 'force projection'/(pulling women) purposes, but my bank manager disagrees, he just can't see a future when it will be required - can't give a toss about me, and he already has one...
I can only agree re. the commonality bit ( but how much use would it REALLY be apart from the French ); but as for AEW, if half the claims for the F-35 made are true, couldn't it supply an AEW link, probably with buddy AAR ?
I've also seen some quite staggering mentions of the F-35's kit, in the public domain but only briefly - to the extent I'll not mention such here.
Still, I really, really need an Aston Martin for essential self esteem 'force projection'/(pulling women) purposes, but my bank manager disagrees, he just can't see a future when it will be required - can't give a toss about me, and he already has one...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
probably with buddy AAR ?
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So overseas basing rights are no problem are they...
"UAE threatens to kick Canada out of covert military base Camp Mirage
STEVEN CHASE AND BRENT JANG
OTTAWA AND TORONTO— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 08, 2010 3:00AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Oct. 08, 2010 6:44AM EDT
It was during a secret meeting in Paris this September that Canada realized there was little room for a compromise that would enable its Afghanistan-bound troops to keep using a covert military base near Dubai.
The Canadian government is now preparing to relocate forces from the United Arab Emirates to somewhere such as Cyprus rather than give in to what it considers unreasonable demands from the host country.
The prospect of a time-consuming move to a potentially costlier and more distant staging location has Defence officials angry and frustrated. The Forces are already engrossed in complicated logistical preparations to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.
In a remarkably blunt diplomatic gambit, the UAE has been threatening to evict Canada from Camp Mirage if the Harper government doesn’t grant its two commercial airlines lucrative additional landing rights at airports in Toronto and other cities, sources familiar with the negotiations say.
Trouble has been brewing for months, and contingency plans were already in the works when officials from the Canadian government – including the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade – met with UAE officials in Paris last month.
Canada’s goal at the behind-the-scenes-talks was to explore the idea of a compromise, to see whether the UAE could be persuaded to put some water in its wine. International air negotiations are usually made public, but these discussions were not.
UAE and its state-owned carriers, including Emirates Airline, have been seeking dozens of new landing slots in Canada in return for letting the Canadian Forces stay in Camp Mirage. Air Canada and Transport Canada oppose the idea of linking air negotiations to geopolitics, though. The fear is that UAE is more interested in stealing lucrative international traffic from Air Canada to cities such as Frankfurt than simply flying more customers to its domestic airports.
Canada wasn’t prepared to give much ground under the circumstances. And neither were UAE officials, it turned out.
A federal government source said there was a “ huge gap” between the number of new landing spots the UAE wanted and the number Canada was willing to give.
The meeting confirmed for Canada that the UAE was not willing to consider alternatives to what they wanted, the source said.
“It ended with nothing.”
The Harper government had nothing to say officially on the future of Camp Mirage on Thursday, even though sources inside and outside Ottawa said the UAE has sent Canada official notice to vacate it within 30 days.
Officials say the Canadians ramped up plans for a move after the Paris meeting and are eyeing Cyprus as an alternative staging ground. Cargo pallets from Canada might be routed through a German base.
There’s still time for a compromise, but it’s not clear how much good will exists for one.
The UAE government vented its frustration in a statement on Thursday, warning that failure to reach a deal on more landing rights will hurt both countries, saying six flights a week for its carriers are insufficient.
“It is unfortunate that this process has been so protracted and frustrating,” UAE Ambassador Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ghafli said.
“The UAE entered negotiations in good faith on the understanding that a solution would be reached and that constructive ideas would be brought to the negotiating table. The fact that this has not come about will only negatively impact the populations and economies of both countries.”
Catherine Loubier, director of communications for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, would say only that the Canada-UAE relationship is strong and mutually beneficial.
“The government of Canada is fully capable of supporting our military commitments in Afghanistan, and we choose arrangements that are in the best interests of Canada.”
Both Dubai-based Emirates Airline and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways want greater access to Canada.
In June, 2009, Emirates introduced the 489-seat Airbus A380 double-decker jet to its Toronto-Dubai route, saying the larger aircraft was needed to meet high demand.
Air Canada says that Emirates isn’t really interested in transporting customers between Dubai and Canada, accusing the foreign carrier of plotting to steal international traffic with Dubai as a stopover, not as a destination.
“Our position is that the UAE, under the current bilateral agreement, has enough capacity to serve the size of the local market,” Air Canada chief commercial officer Ben Smith said Thursday. "
STEVEN CHASE AND BRENT JANG
OTTAWA AND TORONTO— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 08, 2010 3:00AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Oct. 08, 2010 6:44AM EDT
It was during a secret meeting in Paris this September that Canada realized there was little room for a compromise that would enable its Afghanistan-bound troops to keep using a covert military base near Dubai.
The Canadian government is now preparing to relocate forces from the United Arab Emirates to somewhere such as Cyprus rather than give in to what it considers unreasonable demands from the host country.
The prospect of a time-consuming move to a potentially costlier and more distant staging location has Defence officials angry and frustrated. The Forces are already engrossed in complicated logistical preparations to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.
In a remarkably blunt diplomatic gambit, the UAE has been threatening to evict Canada from Camp Mirage if the Harper government doesn’t grant its two commercial airlines lucrative additional landing rights at airports in Toronto and other cities, sources familiar with the negotiations say.
Trouble has been brewing for months, and contingency plans were already in the works when officials from the Canadian government – including the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade – met with UAE officials in Paris last month.
Canada’s goal at the behind-the-scenes-talks was to explore the idea of a compromise, to see whether the UAE could be persuaded to put some water in its wine. International air negotiations are usually made public, but these discussions were not.
UAE and its state-owned carriers, including Emirates Airline, have been seeking dozens of new landing slots in Canada in return for letting the Canadian Forces stay in Camp Mirage. Air Canada and Transport Canada oppose the idea of linking air negotiations to geopolitics, though. The fear is that UAE is more interested in stealing lucrative international traffic from Air Canada to cities such as Frankfurt than simply flying more customers to its domestic airports.
Canada wasn’t prepared to give much ground under the circumstances. And neither were UAE officials, it turned out.
A federal government source said there was a “ huge gap” between the number of new landing spots the UAE wanted and the number Canada was willing to give.
The meeting confirmed for Canada that the UAE was not willing to consider alternatives to what they wanted, the source said.
“It ended with nothing.”
The Harper government had nothing to say officially on the future of Camp Mirage on Thursday, even though sources inside and outside Ottawa said the UAE has sent Canada official notice to vacate it within 30 days.
Officials say the Canadians ramped up plans for a move after the Paris meeting and are eyeing Cyprus as an alternative staging ground. Cargo pallets from Canada might be routed through a German base.
There’s still time for a compromise, but it’s not clear how much good will exists for one.
The UAE government vented its frustration in a statement on Thursday, warning that failure to reach a deal on more landing rights will hurt both countries, saying six flights a week for its carriers are insufficient.
“It is unfortunate that this process has been so protracted and frustrating,” UAE Ambassador Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ghafli said.
“The UAE entered negotiations in good faith on the understanding that a solution would be reached and that constructive ideas would be brought to the negotiating table. The fact that this has not come about will only negatively impact the populations and economies of both countries.”
Catherine Loubier, director of communications for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, would say only that the Canada-UAE relationship is strong and mutually beneficial.
“The government of Canada is fully capable of supporting our military commitments in Afghanistan, and we choose arrangements that are in the best interests of Canada.”
Both Dubai-based Emirates Airline and Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways want greater access to Canada.
In June, 2009, Emirates introduced the 489-seat Airbus A380 double-decker jet to its Toronto-Dubai route, saying the larger aircraft was needed to meet high demand.
Air Canada says that Emirates isn’t really interested in transporting customers between Dubai and Canada, accusing the foreign carrier of plotting to steal international traffic with Dubai as a stopover, not as a destination.
“Our position is that the UAE, under the current bilateral agreement, has enough capacity to serve the size of the local market,” Air Canada chief commercial officer Ben Smith said Thursday. "
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advantages to UK of RN Amphibious and Carrier Forces...
How much might be done with a hundred thousand such as these?
How much might be done with a hundred thousand such as these? - Defence Viewpoints from UK Defence Forum
How much might be done with a hundred thousand such as these? - Defence Viewpoints from UK Defence Forum
This afternoon HM the Queen is naming Cunard's newest floating hotel the "Queen Elizabeth". Is it not time to re-think the name of at least one of the Future Carriers ?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Queen Elizabeth is a traditional RN Capital ship name (refering to Queen Elizabeth I of England, not the current Queen) as is Prince of Wales.
The last two ships with these names were Battleships in WWII.
The last two ships with these names were Battleships in WWII.
Last edited by oldnotbold; 11th Oct 2010 at 14:23.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BW, I suspect someone is planning a photo shoot already.
We have had Concorde and the Red Arrows, QE2 and the Red Arrows, wait for QE/QE and the Red Arrows.
We have had Concorde and the Red Arrows, QE2 and the Red Arrows, wait for QE/QE and the Red Arrows.
ONB, the name is the same regardless to which queen it refers to. Booking an inner cabin on the wrong Queen Elizabeth could be fraught with danger 
I would prefer for the carrier to be named Ark Royal, another name steeped in history. Tricky with one already about though.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Yes, but I heard a story once that during a JMC in the dim & distant, the RAF had a problem with distinguishing a CVS (Ark?) from Principe de Asturias. Oops. Does anyone have more details?
S41
Yes, but I heard a story once that during a JMC in the dim & distant, the RAF had a problem with distinguishing a CVS (Ark?) from Principe de Asturias. Oops. Does anyone have more details?
S41
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am basically an F-35B fan
(Sorry 00, I really couldn't resist).
The carriers have huge PR value, PN's idea will doubtless multiply out a thousandfold, and we'll only see it's a house of cards if we get into a conflict (like 1982) where we rely solely on ourselves... so there's every possibility we'll get away with it. In the event that sombody calls our bluff, it will be a disaster.,,I suspect we are about to rely on a bit of good luck.
Meanwhile the biggest threat to the UK is probably terrorist in origin, and to combat that we need something like a coastguard, lots of spooks (preferably sans Oxbridge accents) and tons of Humint. Bring on the carriers, they'll be absolutely perfect for that role, provided Bed Linen and his chums like cocktail parties....
Thanks Jacko
BTW Squirrell - P De A is approx 30 feet shorter than an Invincible, with a ski jump, Harriers and Helos - in other words they bear more than a passing resemblance to each other, so given Int that places one closer to 'where we found it' than the other, I'd assume it was a fair bit of recce... ie the ship type was recognised, probably at a hell of a range. Short of going alongside and reading the pennant number what do you suggest?
Last edited by davejb; 11th Oct 2010 at 17:04. Reason: Squirrell shooting
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The in-service life of aircraft has increased by decades with early jets lasting mere years and looking distinctly old after 10 years. Now with aircraft like the VC10 at over 40 years a 50-year life for a warship is certainly possible but will there be any appetite for a major costly refit in 20-30 years time or will they just go in to mothballs or disposal?
The USN has (post USS Midway) managed to get around 40-50 years out of their carriers, largely because they were built sufficiently big in the first place.
The RN experience is different, principally because our ships were either war-designed / built and therefore subject to all sorts of constraints that impacted on ability to operate aircraft, or were size limited without the intention of actually being a true aircraft carrier (CVS).
There are a number of things that point towards being able to achieve a longer life with QEC, principally due to the reduced manning levels and high-spec accommodation being applied, which takes accommodation standard increases (a real life-ender) out of the picture. This can be a two-edged sword however, when it comes to supporting ship systems which have a finite component life. Hopefully open-architecture being applied will mitigate this to some degree. The ships are also being designed with adequate margins (stability, structure and power etc) combined with a realistic environmental spec which will also help. All the above (combined with a consistent failure to allow for defence inflation in budgets, hence force structure cuts which also apply to Army & RAF) have led to RN selling on ships early.
Hopefully, the sort of capability-changing refits seen in the past will be reduced in favour of keeping the material state good with capability updates / system obsolescence updates as required.
Famous last words etc........
The RN experience is different, principally because our ships were either war-designed / built and therefore subject to all sorts of constraints that impacted on ability to operate aircraft, or were size limited without the intention of actually being a true aircraft carrier (CVS).
There are a number of things that point towards being able to achieve a longer life with QEC, principally due to the reduced manning levels and high-spec accommodation being applied, which takes accommodation standard increases (a real life-ender) out of the picture. This can be a two-edged sword however, when it comes to supporting ship systems which have a finite component life. Hopefully open-architecture being applied will mitigate this to some degree. The ships are also being designed with adequate margins (stability, structure and power etc) combined with a realistic environmental spec which will also help. All the above (combined with a consistent failure to allow for defence inflation in budgets, hence force structure cuts which also apply to Army & RAF) have led to RN selling on ships early.
Hopefully, the sort of capability-changing refits seen in the past will be reduced in favour of keeping the material state good with capability updates / system obsolescence updates as required.
Famous last words etc........
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back a page to Double Zero's points:
There's a lot of ill-informed comment about the thermal effects of an F-35B doing a VL. I've stood quite happily about 50ft away from BF-1 landing on the AM-2 pad at Pax. It's windy, but to my uncalibrated body it's not a whole lot different from legacy. There are some concerns about the thermals - in no small part because the jet is so easy to land that you're likely to get a lot of very accurate repeat thermal loadings on the same point. It's not the end of the world and there are a number of mitigations, but we're still in early DT.
I've no idea where this red herring about concrete pads comes from. The spec has always called out for requirement to operate from AM-2 surfaces in the austere environment. There is nothing to suggest that it can't meet that spec, as that's exactly what the airplane is doing right now. If an AM-2 surface isn't available then it's back to Creeping and Rolling VLs, just like legacy. As for the RAM coatings issue, well the rocket scientists on PPRuNe aren't the first ones to think of that either I'm afraid.
The -B vs -C debate will rage until we finally buy some -Cs. Hopefully when that happens all the armchair Air Vice Marshals out there will pipe down, or will we then realize that it's not all about the range number. The first thing we, the UK, will do is put PWIV in the weapon bay as we don't have any 2000lb JDAMs in our inventory. So that'll be a zero increase in capability. Then one day we'll get some SDB-type weapons and be able to fit 4 of them in the -C model's bay (just the same as in the -B). And then we'll all be happy when we play Top Trumps cause the range number is bigger than the -B's. Someone might then notice that if you make a bigger airplane, and make it heavier, and then put the same engine in it, it might have some performance differences other than bigger range. I don't know, perhaps bleed rates in the turn and acceleration might be different? I can't remember the last time I wished my airplane was bigger and heavier, or yearned for a lower thrust-weight ratio. But I'm old-fashioned.
Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
There's a lot of ill-informed comment about the thermal effects of an F-35B doing a VL. I've stood quite happily about 50ft away from BF-1 landing on the AM-2 pad at Pax. It's windy, but to my uncalibrated body it's not a whole lot different from legacy. There are some concerns about the thermals - in no small part because the jet is so easy to land that you're likely to get a lot of very accurate repeat thermal loadings on the same point. It's not the end of the world and there are a number of mitigations, but we're still in early DT.
I've no idea where this red herring about concrete pads comes from. The spec has always called out for requirement to operate from AM-2 surfaces in the austere environment. There is nothing to suggest that it can't meet that spec, as that's exactly what the airplane is doing right now. If an AM-2 surface isn't available then it's back to Creeping and Rolling VLs, just like legacy. As for the RAM coatings issue, well the rocket scientists on PPRuNe aren't the first ones to think of that either I'm afraid.
The -B vs -C debate will rage until we finally buy some -Cs. Hopefully when that happens all the armchair Air Vice Marshals out there will pipe down, or will we then realize that it's not all about the range number. The first thing we, the UK, will do is put PWIV in the weapon bay as we don't have any 2000lb JDAMs in our inventory. So that'll be a zero increase in capability. Then one day we'll get some SDB-type weapons and be able to fit 4 of them in the -C model's bay (just the same as in the -B). And then we'll all be happy when we play Top Trumps cause the range number is bigger than the -B's. Someone might then notice that if you make a bigger airplane, and make it heavier, and then put the same engine in it, it might have some performance differences other than bigger range. I don't know, perhaps bleed rates in the turn and acceleration might be different? I can't remember the last time I wished my airplane was bigger and heavier, or yearned for a lower thrust-weight ratio. But I'm old-fashioned.
Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly