Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big deck
I seem to remember the Harrier 2 has a narrower wheeltrack than a series 1 - not THAT much wider wingspan, used to play around both - and even if you'd only use a smaller warship if absolutely necessary, at least you could - meanwhile LPD's, Ocean etc would be fine...not for CTOL though !
Double zero,
The benefits of CTOL far outweigh the benefits of VSTOL. Why have a rough ready made strip, when with CTOL supported by AAR, you can pretty much reach anywhere in the world from the Sea platform. No need to live in a trench, trying to do an engine service in 50 degree heat and trying to keep the sand out. Do you deep servicing in an air-conditioned environment, safe from mortar attack, go to dinner and then get your swede down in a proper bed after watching the evening film. Get up in the morning have a hot shower, take your washing down to the laundry, have breakfast and launch the next wave.
Will Typhoon be operating from unmade strips?
The benefits of CTOL far outweigh the benefits of VSTOL. Why have a rough ready made strip, when with CTOL supported by AAR, you can pretty much reach anywhere in the world from the Sea platform. No need to live in a trench, trying to do an engine service in 50 degree heat and trying to keep the sand out. Do you deep servicing in an air-conditioned environment, safe from mortar attack, go to dinner and then get your swede down in a proper bed after watching the evening film. Get up in the morning have a hot shower, take your washing down to the laundry, have breakfast and launch the next wave.
Will Typhoon be operating from unmade strips?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
Have you any idea what the GR7s are doing in Afghanistan right now?!!! CVF will be cock all use for GCAS and the reaction times required in HERRICK.
I'm a great supporter of CVF and, overall, I too think the F-35C variant will be the best option given that it has a respectably short take off run. However, lets be realistic about what a carrier can provide in many scenarios.
The USN regularly used land bases for much of the Afghan campaign with the aircraft flying off at the start of the day and FOBing several times before coming home to mother. So the comments regarding STOVL are still potentially valid.
Interesting to note that the RAN are set to procure some LPDs. I suspect they'll be closely examining the value of some of their F-35s being B models to enable deck ops.
Have you any idea what the GR7s are doing in Afghanistan right now?!!! CVF will be cock all use for GCAS and the reaction times required in HERRICK.
I'm a great supporter of CVF and, overall, I too think the F-35C variant will be the best option given that it has a respectably short take off run. However, lets be realistic about what a carrier can provide in many scenarios.
The USN regularly used land bases for much of the Afghan campaign with the aircraft flying off at the start of the day and FOBing several times before coming home to mother. So the comments regarding STOVL are still potentially valid.Interesting to note that the RAN are set to procure some LPDs. I suspect they'll be closely examining the value of some of their F-35s being B models to enable deck ops.
"The USN regularly used land bases for much of the Afghan campaign with the aircraft flying off at the start of the day and FOBing several times before coming home to mother"
If the USN with their non-STOVL aircraft can do that, then why not a non-STOVL FAA?
If the USN with their non-STOVL aircraft can do that, then why not a non-STOVL FAA?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can in some cases. But what the FA-18s can't do is FOB to one of the short strips in Afghanistan. The advantage STOVL offers is that it can get in very close to the fight to maintain exceptionally short reaction times via GCAS.
My main point to Widger was that operating purely off the carrier is not the panacea he suggests and is certainly not viable in todays ops. STOVL, just like a carrier aircraft, will always be a compromise. STOVL offers far greater flexibility in basing at sea and certainly on land albeit at the expense of performance and payload.
It's a tough call which would be better and I can see arguments on both sides. As I said, if it was up to me I'd probably take F-35C as it still has a relatively short T/O run.
One has to wonder however if the RAN approach of smaller LPD will turn out to be more realistic than gambling a services future on 2 x 65 000 ton behemoths. No they won't have the same sortie generation rate as CVF. But they look to me to be more affordable and realistic than CVF right now.
I hope I'm wrong.
My main point to Widger was that operating purely off the carrier is not the panacea he suggests and is certainly not viable in todays ops. STOVL, just like a carrier aircraft, will always be a compromise. STOVL offers far greater flexibility in basing at sea and certainly on land albeit at the expense of performance and payload.
It's a tough call which would be better and I can see arguments on both sides. As I said, if it was up to me I'd probably take F-35C as it still has a relatively short T/O run.
One has to wonder however if the RAN approach of smaller LPD will turn out to be more realistic than gambling a services future on 2 x 65 000 ton behemoths. No they won't have the same sortie generation rate as CVF. But they look to me to be more affordable and realistic than CVF right now.
I hope I'm wrong.
Me too, although I'm not holding my breath.
The LHD programme is relatively cheap (at the minute) because it has been done using a relatively sane procurement method, based on off the shelf design. Although one could not do that for CVF, a far more practical (and speedy) approach could have been taken to the procurement of that ship with a consequent impact on cost.
Half the problem is the perception that "behemoths" are inherently expensive and are therefore expected to experience significant cost-escalation. Large ships (even warships) are only expensive if those procuring them do not have a good grasp of what they should be paying. In UK MOD that really does not exist and many of the problems / poor perception of CVF stem from the failure to update the EP provision for the ship when the original 40000 te concept designs (which were costed), turned into the 55000-60000 te ships designed against a realistic Flypro (which were not).
The LHD programme is relatively cheap (at the minute) because it has been done using a relatively sane procurement method, based on off the shelf design. Although one could not do that for CVF, a far more practical (and speedy) approach could have been taken to the procurement of that ship with a consequent impact on cost.
Half the problem is the perception that "behemoths" are inherently expensive and are therefore expected to experience significant cost-escalation. Large ships (even warships) are only expensive if those procuring them do not have a good grasp of what they should be paying. In UK MOD that really does not exist and many of the problems / poor perception of CVF stem from the failure to update the EP provision for the ship when the original 40000 te concept designs (which were costed), turned into the 55000-60000 te ships designed against a realistic Flypro (which were not).
Suspicion breeds confidence
Back to the present I see our on-call carrier is to borrow a fixed wing squadron from the USMC here because Joint Farce Harrier is in such a deplorable state that they can't even rustle up a scratch airgroup. What a mess. At least the RN will be able to see first hand what a proper radar equipped Harrier II+ can do in a maritime environment. At least the Spams will get to see a proper sea going bar in action 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully the Totally Organic Sensor System will be Wide Area Network Compliant supporting Medium Aspect Sensor Technology Utilising Reduced Bandwith Asychronus Transmission Elements.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2+
Despite the acronym descibed above, which I have some sympathy for
( we were BAe Military Aircraft Division, until someone realised that spelt MAD )
A squadron or two of Harrier 2+ is EXACTLY what we could do with, right now - anyone care to bet their pension on the JSF in-service date ?!
( we were BAe Military Aircraft Division, until someone realised that spelt MAD )
A squadron or two of Harrier 2+ is EXACTLY what we could do with, right now - anyone care to bet their pension on the JSF in-service date ?!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the state of the MOD's finances and the track record of the soon to be PM - I wouldn't bet my pension on any ISD or OSD for that matter. Be only too glad to have the pension itself guaranteed!!
Keep smiling chaps - its only the Nation's security and international standing at stake.
Keep smiling chaps - its only the Nation's security and international standing at stake.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impiger
Some may want to check the security of their pension. See:
http://www.afpg.info/
Disgraceful, I have signed. Apologies for the thread hijack. I'll start a new one.
regards
retard
Some may want to check the security of their pension. See:
http://www.afpg.info/
Disgraceful, I have signed. Apologies for the thread hijack. I'll start a new one.
regards
retard
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First time as a contributor - here goes:
Looking at RVLs for the F-35B is definitely worthwhile if hot and heavy recoveries are what the UK wants to do. Some points to bear in mind when discussing them:
1. F-35B is definitely not a Harrier - very decent rolling stock (wheels, tyres, brakes) should mean a respectable braking and steering capability
2. The F-35B flight control systems are several genrations beyond Harrier - RVLs should be a low workload event, with accurate touchdown points.
3. CVF has got the deck space required.
Oh, and as far as the name goes - I agree that Lightning doesn't do it - 'Fury' (Sea Fury for the USMC and USN) would have been terrific.
Thoughts anyone?
Looking at RVLs for the F-35B is definitely worthwhile if hot and heavy recoveries are what the UK wants to do. Some points to bear in mind when discussing them:
1. F-35B is definitely not a Harrier - very decent rolling stock (wheels, tyres, brakes) should mean a respectable braking and steering capability
2. The F-35B flight control systems are several genrations beyond Harrier - RVLs should be a low workload event, with accurate touchdown points.
3. CVF has got the deck space required.
Oh, and as far as the name goes - I agree that Lightning doesn't do it - 'Fury' (Sea Fury for the USMC and USN) would have been terrific.
Thoughts anyone?
F-35
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Names
Misspelt as Furry or Furby - don't think so...
RAF had the popular and elegant Hawker Fury in the 30s.
FAA had the Sea Fury in the 40s/50s, so did the Aussies and the Canadians, and the Dutch.
USN had the FJ-4 Fury in the 50s (nice aircraft)
So...lots of future JSF users with a history there.
But the USAF haven't used the name, as far as I can find out. And it was apparently the USAF who objected to 'Fury' - justifying it on the grounds that GM were holding on to it for their cars (Plymouth Fury).....not sure I believe that one...:
Chief of USAF: Hey, can we use the name 'Fury' for our new wonder fighter jet plane?
Chief of GM: No way, pal - who would possibly want GM cars to be associated with a super fast, technologically advanced patriotic US fighter jet?
Engines
RAF had the popular and elegant Hawker Fury in the 30s.
FAA had the Sea Fury in the 40s/50s, so did the Aussies and the Canadians, and the Dutch.
USN had the FJ-4 Fury in the 50s (nice aircraft)
So...lots of future JSF users with a history there.
But the USAF haven't used the name, as far as I can find out. And it was apparently the USAF who objected to 'Fury' - justifying it on the grounds that GM were holding on to it for their cars (Plymouth Fury).....not sure I believe that one...:
Chief of USAF: Hey, can we use the name 'Fury' for our new wonder fighter jet plane?
Chief of GM: No way, pal - who would possibly want GM cars to be associated with a super fast, technologically advanced patriotic US fighter jet?
Engines
No Hoverstop
If that was you in the cockpit - BZ, even with someone else's deck (CdG by the looks of the planeguard?) -takes a lot of balls to try that.
However, I reiterate - doing that in sh1tty weather on a slick deck in the dark (which is where it will HAVE to work) will be a very dofferent KoF...
Assume its taken from LSO platform, otherwise it looks like you're landing on a bow to stern recovery.
If that was you in the cockpit - BZ, even with someone else's deck (CdG by the looks of the planeguard?) -takes a lot of balls to try that.
However, I reiterate - doing that in sh1tty weather on a slick deck in the dark (which is where it will HAVE to work) will be a very dofferent KoF...
Assume its taken from LSO platform, otherwise it looks like you're landing on a bow to stern recovery.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 26th Jun 2007 at 08:24.