Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, MM,
Thanks for the replies and I happily stand better informed on drop tank consumption for other types. I would gently point out that my observation was based on plenty of operations with another type, which had drops and very rarely dropped them on ops, even when faced with significant threats.
BUT....I stand by my contention that drop tanks, especially for aircraft trying to go fast and low, or fast and long, or just long, are not an optimal answer. The basic aircraft internal volume needs to be as right as it can be for the mission. When you get drop tanks so large that they need to be jettisoned, in my view (and it's a personal one), the aircraft ain't right for the mission. And if you are really after sustained G, then drop tanks are definitely not the way to go - they nearly always impact available G and always increase drag.
For JSF, we might also bear in mind that LO is probably an 'early phase' requirement - later in the war, it will be loaded up with tanks and external weapons - and JSF has LOTS of weapons stations. So, and back to carrier thread matters, that means we will need adequate drop tank stowages in CVF - if it ever gets built...
Regards
Engines
Thanks for the replies and I happily stand better informed on drop tank consumption for other types. I would gently point out that my observation was based on plenty of operations with another type, which had drops and very rarely dropped them on ops, even when faced with significant threats.
BUT....I stand by my contention that drop tanks, especially for aircraft trying to go fast and low, or fast and long, or just long, are not an optimal answer. The basic aircraft internal volume needs to be as right as it can be for the mission. When you get drop tanks so large that they need to be jettisoned, in my view (and it's a personal one), the aircraft ain't right for the mission. And if you are really after sustained G, then drop tanks are definitely not the way to go - they nearly always impact available G and always increase drag.
For JSF, we might also bear in mind that LO is probably an 'early phase' requirement - later in the war, it will be loaded up with tanks and external weapons - and JSF has LOTS of weapons stations. So, and back to carrier thread matters, that means we will need adequate drop tank stowages in CVF - if it ever gets built...
Regards
Engines
Lots of weapon stations?
Yes and no...
The JSF has a respectable 11 stations.
However, five of those are quite limited. The centerline is mainly there for the external gun. The weapon bay AAM stations are AMRAAM or possibly ASRAAM rated, and the outer wing stations are SRAAM-only.
That leaves six heavy stations, of which two (internal) are volume-limited to roughly the size of a 2000 lb JDAM.
That's respectable. 13 stations (Phoon) is OK, but this is scary:
Yes and no...
The JSF has a respectable 11 stations.
However, five of those are quite limited. The centerline is mainly there for the external gun. The weapon bay AAM stations are AMRAAM or possibly ASRAAM rated, and the outer wing stations are SRAAM-only.
That leaves six heavy stations, of which two (internal) are volume-limited to roughly the size of a 2000 lb JDAM.
That's respectable. 13 stations (Phoon) is OK, but this is scary:
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
There does seem to be atendency to 'bash' the F-35, or at least damn it with faint praise.
11 weapon stations is not at all bad for an aircraft with a smallish wingspan. 4 are internal - that means weapons carried with nil drag. That's a good thing - a very good thing. Add in the sensor/comms/datalinks JSF has, and it's got plenty of bang for the buck.
Phoon and Flanker both have plenty of stations, but like ANY aircraft, some are limited, not all combinations can be carried, and range takes a big hit with a full load. Doesn't make them bad aircraft - let's just see if we can admit that JSF has a bit going for it.
Regards
Engines.
There does seem to be atendency to 'bash' the F-35, or at least damn it with faint praise.
11 weapon stations is not at all bad for an aircraft with a smallish wingspan. 4 are internal - that means weapons carried with nil drag. That's a good thing - a very good thing. Add in the sensor/comms/datalinks JSF has, and it's got plenty of bang for the buck.
Phoon and Flanker both have plenty of stations, but like ANY aircraft, some are limited, not all combinations can be carried, and range takes a big hit with a full load. Doesn't make them bad aircraft - let's just see if we can admit that JSF has a bit going for it.
Regards
Engines.
Blame My Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somerdorset, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVLs and Dave B Controls
Notwithstanding previous posts on RVLs, I wondered if the degree of difficulty in conducting RVLs to a carrier would be made worse by Dave B's weird/innovative control laws (i.e. in wingborne flight controls work in a conventional way and in the hover, Fore/Aft movement is controlled by the throttle lever, Roll is normal, and Up/Down is controlled by fore/aft movement on the control column)?
Therefore manual RVLs would seem to be conducted in the transition phase between conventional and hover control regimes?
Therefore manual RVLs would seem to be conducted in the transition phase between conventional and hover control regimes?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
France To Decide On Aircraft Carrier By Early 2008
By REUTERS, PARIS
France will reach a final decision on whether to go ahead with the construction of a second aircraft carrier by early 2008, Defense Minister Herve Morin said July 11.
France and Britain are working toward building new aircraft carriers together. With Britain looking for new ships in 2012 and 2015 and France wanting one around the same time, the two sides are looking at how to combine their efforts.
In an interview with France Info radio and La Chaine Parlementaire television, Morin said there was no sign Britain was abandoning the project, but he would meet his British counterpart on July 14 and discuss if it was still feasible. “It will enable us to check that the industrial cooperation we have launched on this program is still topical,” he said.
In a separate interview with Valeurs Actuelles magazine, Morin said it would be a concern if the project was stopped. “It would be an additional worry because this program of 2.5 billion euros ($3.44 billion) can be reduced by a few hundred million through industrial cooperation with the British,” he told the magazine.
President Nicolas Sarkozy said during this year’s election campaign that he wanted France to have a second aircraft carrier, but Prime Minister Francois Fillon raised doubts about the project last week.
In a speech to the lower house of parliament, Fillon said a review of defense spending would involve tough choices, such as whether and when France needed a second aircraft carrier. “We are working towards making this second aircraft carrier,” Morin said. “A definitive decision will be taken, based on all the analyses, between the end of this year and the start of next year,” he added.......
By REUTERS, PARIS
France will reach a final decision on whether to go ahead with the construction of a second aircraft carrier by early 2008, Defense Minister Herve Morin said July 11.
France and Britain are working toward building new aircraft carriers together. With Britain looking for new ships in 2012 and 2015 and France wanting one around the same time, the two sides are looking at how to combine their efforts.
In an interview with France Info radio and La Chaine Parlementaire television, Morin said there was no sign Britain was abandoning the project, but he would meet his British counterpart on July 14 and discuss if it was still feasible. “It will enable us to check that the industrial cooperation we have launched on this program is still topical,” he said.
In a separate interview with Valeurs Actuelles magazine, Morin said it would be a concern if the project was stopped. “It would be an additional worry because this program of 2.5 billion euros ($3.44 billion) can be reduced by a few hundred million through industrial cooperation with the British,” he told the magazine.
President Nicolas Sarkozy said during this year’s election campaign that he wanted France to have a second aircraft carrier, but Prime Minister Francois Fillon raised doubts about the project last week.
In a speech to the lower house of parliament, Fillon said a review of defense spending would involve tough choices, such as whether and when France needed a second aircraft carrier. “We are working towards making this second aircraft carrier,” Morin said. “A definitive decision will be taken, based on all the analyses, between the end of this year and the start of next year,” he added.......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems about as predictable as the plot from Neighbours.
Sarkozy cancels the second French carrier. Brown allows the purchase of one x CVF but cancels plans for a second. Maintenance for both is deconflicted to maintain an Anglo-French Euro carrier force with each conducting cross decking for trg and some ops when the other's ship is unavailable. Most importantly, both nations feel 'equal' on the P5 table (which let's face it, is largely what the Trident replacement is all about)
The reduced CVF purchase will also allow reductions in the wider RN surface fleet.
I hope I'm wrong. Sadly, I bet I'm not.
Regards,
MM
Sarkozy cancels the second French carrier. Brown allows the purchase of one x CVF but cancels plans for a second. Maintenance for both is deconflicted to maintain an Anglo-French Euro carrier force with each conducting cross decking for trg and some ops when the other's ship is unavailable. Most importantly, both nations feel 'equal' on the P5 table (which let's face it, is largely what the Trident replacement is all about)
The reduced CVF purchase will also allow reductions in the wider RN surface fleet.
I hope I'm wrong. Sadly, I bet I'm not.
Regards,
MM
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MM, see where I'm coming from?
PS, when they visited, many moons ago, they brought coffee and it was handshakes with everyone every day!
PS, when they visited, many moons ago, they brought coffee and it was handshakes with everyone every day!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Magic Mushroom
The reduced CVF purchase will also allow reductions in the wider RN surface fleet.
GBZ
You are probably right and it conveniently neglects the point that DD/FFs do more than screen Carriers. If Ivan and the Chinese hordes can say nothing and act casual for just a few more years, only the USN could stop them having the High Seas all to themselves.
Given the problems the cousins are having actually procuring ships at the minute, all it needs is for "the dreaded International Chinese Communist Conspiracy" to hang around for a few more years and then even "American Defense or Crelm toothpaste with added ingredient Fraudulin" will struggle to do anything about them.
You are probably right and it conveniently neglects the point that DD/FFs do more than screen Carriers. If Ivan and the Chinese hordes can say nothing and act casual for just a few more years, only the USN could stop them having the High Seas all to themselves.
Given the problems the cousins are having actually procuring ships at the minute, all it needs is for "the dreaded International Chinese Communist Conspiracy" to hang around for a few more years and then even "American Defense or Crelm toothpaste with added ingredient Fraudulin" will struggle to do anything about them.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious,
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the French military and my op experience has led me to trust them as an Allie considerably more than the US.
However, our respective E-3 forces are sufficient to service our respective needs. Sharing carriers would lead to some interesting circumstances if one wanted to use the other's boat on an op the other didn't approve of.
But I do think the writing's on the wall.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the French military and my op experience has led me to trust them as an Allie considerably more than the US.
However, our respective E-3 forces are sufficient to service our respective needs. Sharing carriers would lead to some interesting circumstances if one wanted to use the other's boat on an op the other didn't approve of.
But I do think the writing's on the wall.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M-M
You're not wrong there, given the gist of Lord Draysons talk at the Wood last week....
"
The main focus must be on giving the armed forces want they need now and not want they needed 5 or 10 years ago. He said that this would be achieved through four primary aims for the department over the next few years;
1.
2. Creating an affordable forward programme, including having the headroom needed for flexibility. This means genuinely cutting capability, and not just from uncommitted lines, but being prepared to terminate and renegotiate extant contracts, either because they are failing or because the capability need has changed - taking a hard line with Industry such that they must be prepared to accept cancellation if they want other work. This very much includes collaborative projects, despite the potential political fallout.
3.
4. "
My bold.
You're not wrong there, given the gist of Lord Draysons talk at the Wood last week....
"
The main focus must be on giving the armed forces want they need now and not want they needed 5 or 10 years ago. He said that this would be achieved through four primary aims for the department over the next few years;
1.
2. Creating an affordable forward programme, including having the headroom needed for flexibility. This means genuinely cutting capability, and not just from uncommitted lines, but being prepared to terminate and renegotiate extant contracts, either because they are failing or because the capability need has changed - taking a hard line with Industry such that they must be prepared to accept cancellation if they want other work. This very much includes collaborative projects, despite the potential political fallout.
3.
4. "
My bold.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust French as Allies More than US?
M-M - would you care to elaborate on your statement that you'd prefer the French as allies to the US? This would appear to be against recieved wisdom.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L-H,
In Bosnia, Kosovo and, to a lesser extent, Iraq, I found that at an operational and arguably strategic level, the US would sometimes engage in exceptionally nefarious deception of their so called Allies. I won't go into details, but some US activities in Bosnia were probably the worse example of this where they proved more than willing of placing Allied nations lives at risk to achieve their own narrow aims.
Whilst I wouldn't trust the French govt per se, I've always found the French military very no nonsense operators who could be trusted.
For many years I felt our interests were best served focusing towards North America rather than Europe. My op experience, and particularly the way the UK has been sucked into Iraq on the coat tails of the US, increasingly push me towards a more European stance.
Regards,
MM
In Bosnia, Kosovo and, to a lesser extent, Iraq, I found that at an operational and arguably strategic level, the US would sometimes engage in exceptionally nefarious deception of their so called Allies. I won't go into details, but some US activities in Bosnia were probably the worse example of this where they proved more than willing of placing Allied nations lives at risk to achieve their own narrow aims.
Whilst I wouldn't trust the French govt per se, I've always found the French military very no nonsense operators who could be trusted.
For many years I felt our interests were best served focusing towards North America rather than Europe. My op experience, and particularly the way the UK has been sucked into Iraq on the coat tails of the US, increasingly push me towards a more European stance.
Regards,
MM