Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

Russia's new radar system can detect the F 35 and F 22.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2021/5/24/16227/

Says manufacturer of russian radar system. Strangely, doesn't say whether it can detect at any useful range.......

[Royalistflyer]

I've been saying for some time that the low vis effort is a waste of money and that radar was developing the ability to see them. Yes, just how far out they can see them is an important point. The Americans seem to have drawn the same conclusion as the supposed new replacement for F35 isn't low vis. Once you discount low vis, just how good is the F35B? The USAF has been reported as not having a high opinion of the F35. But then I am a crusty old cat and trap man who thinks that our carriers would be a whole lot more useful if they had them.

[Asturias56]

"But then I am a crusty old cat and trap man who thinks that our carriers would be a whole lot more useful if they had them."

I don't think there are many people (even us nay-sayers on the whole UK project) that don't agree with that statement

[WE Branch Fanatic]

That would have meant more expense, more personnel needed, training requirements that are not really compatible with the concept of a joint RN/RAF Lightning Force, and are you really suggesting that the UK was going to purchase things like the E-2 Hawkeye? In addition to that, STOVL provides greater sorties rates for the same ship size and number of aircraft and people, and allows aircraft recovery in worse sea conditions.

Anyway, the CSG21 deployment has started in earnest:

Twitter

Going back to the issue of ASW helicopters and 24 hour defence, In the words of CO 820NAS:

“In terms of the number of people we need to operate those aircraft, we will have approximately 60 aircrew and about 130 engineers and other support staff. That will give us the ability to fly aircraft 24 hours a day with between two and three lines, constantly supporting and protecting the carrier and the strike group.”

Between two and three lines? Does that mean several aircraft up at the same time?

[Asturias56]

"training requirements that are not really compatible with the concept of a joint RN/RAF Lightning Force" - Uh? The RAF doesn't need vertical landing WEBF - they use runways - remember?

", and are you really suggesting that the UK was going to purchase things like the E-2 Hawkeye" chance would be a fine thing but Crowsnest can operate off a cats& trap vessel as well no?

[Royalistflyer]

My problem all along with carriers sans cat and trap is that they are totally wedded to a particular design of aircraft. There is NO probability that a future stovl strike aircraft will ever be produced. If the US Marines hadn't wanted it, there would have been no F-35B. So when the F-35B finally dies before the end of the carrier life - what then? The MoD has been looking at EMALS we hear. EMALS are usually variable power - able to launch heavy strike aircraft or small drones. We know the F-35B has apallingly short legs. One can but hope that something sensible will emerge.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

..and a security for such as pass on the seas on their lawful occasions..

You Tube

I was waiting to post stories from the RN website or indeed Twitter regarding the exercises, but HMS Queen Elizabeth, her embarked aircraft, and her strike/task group have delivered real capability. It should be obvious that we would be able to put more Lightnings and Merlins aboard Queen Elizbeth if we were not going to put both aboard Prince of Wales in the very near future.

[Royalistflyer]

Maybe this MQ-25 using EMALS on the carriers will solve the tanker problem and give the F-35 real range. And if it can be launched, then so couls other useful aircraft now and in the future.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

RoyalistFlyer

A quick Google search suggests that the combat radius for the F-35B on internal fuel is 505 nm. Not too shabby, and you seem to forget that land based tankers frequently support carrier operations - most carrier based tanking supports aircraft recovering that miss a wire and need to top up and go around again. In an air defence scenario the enemy aircraft come to you.

I am not sure why you are so dismissive of LO technology - making life harder for enemy radars.

Asturias56

Errr - what? If it were not for vertical landing, all aircraft and pilots earmarked for carrier embarkation would need to continually practice carrier landing.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Ten hectic days for the Royal Navy's Carrier Strike Group

The Royal Navy was central to the maritime phase of exercise Steadfast Defender 2021, the first large-scale test of NATO’s adapted command structure, with the involvement of two new commands – for the Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia and for logistics in Ulm, Germany.

As NATO’s biggest exercise this year, it aims to test readiness and military mobility, with forces deploying across land and sea, from North America to the Black Sea region. Twenty ships were involved in the maritime phase 20-28 May. A ‘free play’ scenario involved ships of SNMG 1 and SNMG 2 attempting to attack the carrier strike group charged with protecting merchant vessels crossing the Atlantic to Europe.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

RoyalistFlyer


Errr - what? If it were not for vertical landing, all aircraft and pilots earmarked for carrier embarkation would need to continually practice carrier landing.

I'd thought that the landing process on carriers was now pretty effectively automated. Is that not the case?

[Asturias56]

"A quick Google search suggests that the combat radius for the F-35B on internal fuel is 505 nm. Not too shabby, "

Did you read the 2020 CSBA Study? Slide 4 entitled "Threat inside 1000nm may prevent CVW or air base operations"??? It shows at least 7 PLA missile types that can reach out over 550 nm.................................. and a couple of JH-7a Brigades can deliver circa 1200 tones of ordinance a day at 550 miles off the Chinese coast without refuelling.

They state that the Outer Air Battle uses distributed air defences with CAP's at 800 -1000 nm out ..............

[Royalistflyer]

"Rear Adm. Michael Manazir has suggested that three of these (MQ25) UCAVs could fly with an F-35 for refueling and sensor operation.[8] Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km). The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi" Seems the USN thinks differently from you.

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"training requirements that are not really compatible with the concept of a joint RN/RAF Lightning Force" - Uh? The RAF doesn't need vertical landing WEBF - they use runways - remember?

And yet I spent part of my career on an RAF base with 4 sqns, all capable of VTOL, especially the L. At the time, the loss of long straight hard bits was a credible possibility and the ability to deploy and use short bits of road or even steel has considered useful.

[Asturias56]

You are correct but looking around no-one is currently developing an advanced VTOL fighter/strike aircraft after the F-35. The limitations you incur with carrying a lift only engine (s) are just too much. The genius of the Harrier family was that here was no wasted engine on board and even then it was somewhat compromised by the VTOL role

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

You are correct but looking around no-one is currently developing an advanced VTOL fighter/strike aircraft after the F-35. The limitations you incur with carrying a lift only engine (s) are just too much. The genius of the Harrier family was that here was no wasted engine on board and even then it was somewhat compromised by the VTOL role

Think that your take is spot on.
If Boeing had not gutted their engineering competence, their X-32 contender for the F/A-X contract might have have prevailed, instead of the truly unimpressive Lockheed F-35.
Afaik, the X-32 was essentially a modern take on the Harrier concept.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Joint press point with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Defence Minister Joćo Gomes Cravinho of Portugal, Military Committee Chair, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, SACEUR Gen. Tod Wolters and First Sea Lord Adm. Tony Radakin

You Tube

[Paying Guest]

Originally Posted by etudiant

Think that your take is spot on.
If Boeing had not gutted their engineering competence, their X-32 contender for the F/A-X contract might have have prevailed, instead of the truly unimpressive Lockheed F-35.
Afaik, the X-32 was essentially a modern take on the Harrier concept.

True, the X-32 was essentially an updated version of the Harrier concept, but it was seriously out-performed by the X-35 - hence it was even less impressive than the X-35.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Paying Guest

True, the X-32 was essentially an updated version of the Harrier concept, but it was seriously out-performed by the X-35 - hence it was even less impressive than the X-35.

I've not found any documented evaluations, but the X-32 was clearly nowhere near ready for showtime, irrespective of the F-35s qualities.
The images of the X-32 attempting VTOL stripped of even the chin air intake duct to reduce the airframe weight really showed that 'the emperor (Boeing) had no clothes'.

[Paying Guest]

Originally Posted by etudiant

I've not found any documented evaluations, but the X-32 was clearly nowhere near ready for showtime, irrespective of the F-35s qualities.
The images of the X-32 attempting VTOL stripped of even the chin air intake duct to reduce the airframe weight really showed that 'the emperor (Boeing) had no clothes'.

Obviously there were a lot of factors involved in the competition and in the formal evaluation, but throughout the competition the general view was that if the risks associated with the X-35 lift fan could be overcome satisfactorily the X-32 would be hard pressed to compete. That proved to be the case, even when allowing for the relative lack of engineering maturity of the latter.