Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Range
Don't forget, old chap, that 'range' is a bit more complex than it appears. Aircraft with long 'range' are also able to go to short 'range' targets but can loiter a bit while the CJs smack the SAM sites, they can retrograde when the Flankers launch, and they can hit the target later. They can also 'gate' on the run out when it's all gone pear-shaped. Options denied to those with smaller 'range', who on paper should have had the same effect. Those chaps have to scurry home to Mum and tell someone else that they have to do it all again tomorrow.
Given the same FOB, and the same FAC, the same distance away, an aircraft with a greater 'range' will actually give a greater persistence than his shorter 'range' competitor.
Oh, and let's not forget, they're probably going home to Mum. So the 'i was a little careless with the blower due to a minor SA-15/ Fulcrum combo issue, can i come home early please?' Will probably be met with a 'No, everyone's in the same boat' type answer. (The ones we all love). However, given greater 'range' not only might the aircraft in question not need any favours - most of the boys in the stack might agree to slip a minute or two in return for a Smiths post de-brief.
If anyone ever offered me greater range, more bombs or a f@#king fan, i know what i'd go for.
Given the same FOB, and the same FAC, the same distance away, an aircraft with a greater 'range' will actually give a greater persistence than his shorter 'range' competitor.
Oh, and let's not forget, they're probably going home to Mum. So the 'i was a little careless with the blower due to a minor SA-15/ Fulcrum combo issue, can i come home early please?' Will probably be met with a 'No, everyone's in the same boat' type answer. (The ones we all love). However, given greater 'range' not only might the aircraft in question not need any favours - most of the boys in the stack might agree to slip a minute or two in return for a Smiths post de-brief.
If anyone ever offered me greater range, more bombs or a f@#king fan, i know what i'd go for.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re range - what likely targets require such addl range that make the B so unsuitable?
The kind of targets that have other service branches that can hit back at foes at sea.
The carriers can stand off at additional range from the target, that's the idea.
The kind of targets that have other service branches that can hit back at foes at sea.
The carriers can stand off at additional range from the target, that's the idea.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The kind of targets that have other service branches that can hit back at foes at sea.
The carriers can stand off at additional range from the target, that's the idea.
The carriers can stand off at additional range from the target, that's the idea.
And you can't coerce much with Typhoon from the UK homebase, whereas 12 miles offshore in international waters is a good indication of intent!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca,
I don't think it's as black and white as you clearly think it is. The US Marines have wanted and needed the capability to operate strike aircraft from austere bases near the frontline over and over again - from island hopping across the Pacific in WWII, to Vietnam, operating off roads in Desert Storm, Bagram and FARP'ing from helicopter sites near Al Kut in OIF. Even the UK has needed / used the capability including the tin strip in the Falklands and Kandahar etc etc. Having long range is good in one sense, but that means it takes even longer to react to an urgent call for fires. Forward basing has a time and a place.
JSF has been designed from the outset to have a very small logistics footprint when deployed - it's a Key User Requirement in the contract, defined by the number of C-17 loads/aircraft. So people have thought about this and we've defined a requirement based (presumably) on a logistics footprint that we can support.
You're also thinking in a very legacy mindset if you think JSF will be holding off waiting for CJ's etc. This is a very stealthy aircraft indeed. You can operate it like an F-117 or B2 and pretty much go where you want, when you want. You're going to want to avoid using afterburner like the plague as the last thing a stealthy aircraft wants to do on a dark night is light the sky up with a huge flame (or highlight yourself on IRST) so there won't be much 'gating' from Flankers either.
If you care to read anything about the huge effort that has gone into developing unified control laws for the F-35B, you'll discover that it is indeed incredibly simple to hover. There's no nozzle lever, and the jet will do everything for you. Autoland, for a conventional F-35C, relies entirely on JPALS working, and as far as I know it's slipped further right than our required IOC. And you're still going to have to train for a reversionary approach in the event that your primary recovery aid goes down. So at some point you'll need to find a training aircraft to teach all our Hawk pilots how to land on boats etc (unless you're advocating doing your first carrier landing in an F-35?). I am also led to believe that the design for the first carrier is pretty much frozen and it's going to be a STOVL boat unless we pay a huge amount of cash, so you could say the ship's already sailed....
You're obviously quite right that aircraft get heavier over their lives, but engines also get bigger and more efficient. The original Harrier engine from the 60's couldn't lift a II+, but over the years the engine has been improved and you can now hover a heavy radar bird in the Persian Gulf with a couple of LGBs and fuel tanks. Similarly the F136 engine is already more powerful than the F135 and I'd bet my house that the boys at GE/P&W/RR can figure out how to get more thrust from their engines over the life of the F-35B. So I don't see your point there either.
I really don't particularly mind which variant of F-35 the UK chooses to buy as they're both fantastic. But I'm assuming that some clever people will have done some exhaustive studies into which model is better for our particular requirements. If the decision they've come to is that the -B is the one, do you really think the best thing to do is to sit around whining that it hasn't got xxx of fuel, when it has more than enough to fulfil its intended roles? You may well be able to think of a particular scenario where the -C has an advantage over the -B, but if it's not a scenario that the UK has a requirement to be able to fulfil then it's a bit irrelevant.
Finally, Mr Grim - it sounds like your assuming that we're going to attack an enemy who's just clever enough to harden his assets to withstand a 1000lb bomb, but just stupid enough not to harden them to withstand a 2000lb. If it's a hard target, then you're probably looking at Storm Shadow from the GR4 or Typhoon boys. But for the other 99% of targets out there, a 1000lb will usually do just fine - check out the stats from OIF.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I don't think it's as black and white as you clearly think it is. The US Marines have wanted and needed the capability to operate strike aircraft from austere bases near the frontline over and over again - from island hopping across the Pacific in WWII, to Vietnam, operating off roads in Desert Storm, Bagram and FARP'ing from helicopter sites near Al Kut in OIF. Even the UK has needed / used the capability including the tin strip in the Falklands and Kandahar etc etc. Having long range is good in one sense, but that means it takes even longer to react to an urgent call for fires. Forward basing has a time and a place.
JSF has been designed from the outset to have a very small logistics footprint when deployed - it's a Key User Requirement in the contract, defined by the number of C-17 loads/aircraft. So people have thought about this and we've defined a requirement based (presumably) on a logistics footprint that we can support.
You're also thinking in a very legacy mindset if you think JSF will be holding off waiting for CJ's etc. This is a very stealthy aircraft indeed. You can operate it like an F-117 or B2 and pretty much go where you want, when you want. You're going to want to avoid using afterburner like the plague as the last thing a stealthy aircraft wants to do on a dark night is light the sky up with a huge flame (or highlight yourself on IRST) so there won't be much 'gating' from Flankers either.
If you care to read anything about the huge effort that has gone into developing unified control laws for the F-35B, you'll discover that it is indeed incredibly simple to hover. There's no nozzle lever, and the jet will do everything for you. Autoland, for a conventional F-35C, relies entirely on JPALS working, and as far as I know it's slipped further right than our required IOC. And you're still going to have to train for a reversionary approach in the event that your primary recovery aid goes down. So at some point you'll need to find a training aircraft to teach all our Hawk pilots how to land on boats etc (unless you're advocating doing your first carrier landing in an F-35?). I am also led to believe that the design for the first carrier is pretty much frozen and it's going to be a STOVL boat unless we pay a huge amount of cash, so you could say the ship's already sailed....
You're obviously quite right that aircraft get heavier over their lives, but engines also get bigger and more efficient. The original Harrier engine from the 60's couldn't lift a II+, but over the years the engine has been improved and you can now hover a heavy radar bird in the Persian Gulf with a couple of LGBs and fuel tanks. Similarly the F136 engine is already more powerful than the F135 and I'd bet my house that the boys at GE/P&W/RR can figure out how to get more thrust from their engines over the life of the F-35B. So I don't see your point there either.
I really don't particularly mind which variant of F-35 the UK chooses to buy as they're both fantastic. But I'm assuming that some clever people will have done some exhaustive studies into which model is better for our particular requirements. If the decision they've come to is that the -B is the one, do you really think the best thing to do is to sit around whining that it hasn't got xxx of fuel, when it has more than enough to fulfil its intended roles? You may well be able to think of a particular scenario where the -C has an advantage over the -B, but if it's not a scenario that the UK has a requirement to be able to fulfil then it's a bit irrelevant.
Finally, Mr Grim - it sounds like your assuming that we're going to attack an enemy who's just clever enough to harden his assets to withstand a 1000lb bomb, but just stupid enough not to harden them to withstand a 2000lb. If it's a hard target, then you're probably looking at Storm Shadow from the GR4 or Typhoon boys. But for the other 99% of targets out there, a 1000lb will usually do just fine - check out the stats from OIF.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The potential for a diesel sub to infiltrate the defencive zone was proven by the Chinese quite recently.
The threat will push the CV further out which then increases the demand on AAR or more bomb trucks.
Finally, the CV is not the only HVA. Hit the supply train.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF
Thank you for your reply. All more than fair, and obviously very well informed, although i don't necessarily agree with you. (As is my wont, and i fully accept that you don't have to agree with me etc etc)
I would put forward the fact that there will be scenarios, stealthy or not when you will require loiter time for special mission aircraft or UAVs, or even your own wingmen, to do their job. I think that the LO geeks will work wonders, but you might still need to run away or defeat a weapon kinematically, so fuel is good. (There's every chance that threat nations also have geeks, they might be up to no good.) I completely accept that B or C will be awesome. I think that the USMC are getting a fantastic aeroplane, but they have the luxury in certain circumstances, of having a USN along with them. My personal opinion is that the UK needs to be a little less stove-piped. Particularly as this aeroplane might well end up replacing GR4, so a common OS asset across the board is worth considering.
I think deploying to a FOB using C-17 sounds great, but 'stepping ashore' from CVF doesn't. (C-17 loads and ASW Merlin loads being somewhat different.) You probably know better than i how much kit the UK is fragged for and whether or not the C-17 would fly with stuff left at Lossie/ pinched from another unit.
I accept fully that all the VAAC work etc has made the job of hovering easy. (Let's be honest hovering a harrier 2 is achieved daily by a number of people, so i assume it doesn't rank as the hardest task in the world) But i remain to be convinced that you'll get more than one DL per hop. This might not represent a training burden, it might present a logistical burden.
I think your most telling point is that the boat has indeed sailed, I cannot see UK buying anything other than STOVL, (in fact i'd bet my house on the fact!)but i don't subscribe to the view that this should stop us debating the issue. (If you, like i, have nothing better to do of an evening!)
Fly safely.
Thank you for your reply. All more than fair, and obviously very well informed, although i don't necessarily agree with you. (As is my wont, and i fully accept that you don't have to agree with me etc etc)
I would put forward the fact that there will be scenarios, stealthy or not when you will require loiter time for special mission aircraft or UAVs, or even your own wingmen, to do their job. I think that the LO geeks will work wonders, but you might still need to run away or defeat a weapon kinematically, so fuel is good. (There's every chance that threat nations also have geeks, they might be up to no good.) I completely accept that B or C will be awesome. I think that the USMC are getting a fantastic aeroplane, but they have the luxury in certain circumstances, of having a USN along with them. My personal opinion is that the UK needs to be a little less stove-piped. Particularly as this aeroplane might well end up replacing GR4, so a common OS asset across the board is worth considering.
I think deploying to a FOB using C-17 sounds great, but 'stepping ashore' from CVF doesn't. (C-17 loads and ASW Merlin loads being somewhat different.) You probably know better than i how much kit the UK is fragged for and whether or not the C-17 would fly with stuff left at Lossie/ pinched from another unit.
I accept fully that all the VAAC work etc has made the job of hovering easy. (Let's be honest hovering a harrier 2 is achieved daily by a number of people, so i assume it doesn't rank as the hardest task in the world) But i remain to be convinced that you'll get more than one DL per hop. This might not represent a training burden, it might present a logistical burden.
I think your most telling point is that the boat has indeed sailed, I cannot see UK buying anything other than STOVL, (in fact i'd bet my house on the fact!)but i don't subscribe to the view that this should stop us debating the issue. (If you, like i, have nothing better to do of an evening!)
Fly safely.
Last edited by orca; 9th Jul 2008 at 08:36. Reason: Spelling mistake
I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate the problems of deck landing, and the continuing practice thereof.
In the old days, we just did a lot of MADDLs (Miror Assisted Dummy Deck Landings), followed by a few DLPs (Deck Landing Practice, ie touch-and-gos) strapped to a Bucc/Vixen, and that was pretty much it. Returning to the deck after a lay-off one merely did a few MADDLs in the couple of days before re-embarking, and the ship usually gave us a few DLPs before recovering us at the end of the first few sorties.
I think we also can assume
1. That the F35 will be a lot more forgiving than a Bucc/Vixen in the circuit.
2. That it will offer greater assistance in the way of automatics.
3. That the simulator will be able to replace the MADDL sorties, and be more realistic as well.
Incidentally, will the carriers be fitted with some form of sim, does anyone know?
In the old days, we just did a lot of MADDLs (Miror Assisted Dummy Deck Landings), followed by a few DLPs (Deck Landing Practice, ie touch-and-gos) strapped to a Bucc/Vixen, and that was pretty much it. Returning to the deck after a lay-off one merely did a few MADDLs in the couple of days before re-embarking, and the ship usually gave us a few DLPs before recovering us at the end of the first few sorties.
I think we also can assume
1. That the F35 will be a lot more forgiving than a Bucc/Vixen in the circuit.
2. That it will offer greater assistance in the way of automatics.
3. That the simulator will be able to replace the MADDL sorties, and be more realistic as well.
Incidentally, will the carriers be fitted with some form of sim, does anyone know?
So let me get this right - the justification for STOVL F35 is that conventional carrier landings are hard and require constant training whereas VLs on carriers are much easier and don't? LOL - as the yoof say. Can't wait to banter the harrrier mates about that!
I'm not sure the last 2 letters of STOVL have proved their utility on current ops.
Regardless of the fun to be had debating the pros and cons of the CVF project and whether the B or the C is the better jet (You can't beat flexibility but the range and payload would be nice etc etc) lets just celebrate the fact that we are getting two purpose designed, state of the art carriers and a fleet of fifth generation fighters to put on them.
You just can't predict what we will need over the next 40 years but any variant of Dave and the ability to deploy them independantly worldwide is a sound, flexible insurance policy.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius N. That is a good point about SSKs and hitting the "supply train". Hit the essential AOR, AO or, by then, MARS and operational endurance immediately becomes limited. That means that the support ships will need to stay inside the Screen. They will still be vulnerable to air attack and underwater attack. To counter the former, there is an intention of 6 T45 DDs. For the latter, by then, we will have no more than 13 T23 FFs (the Future Surface Combatant isn't discussed very much, is it). Assuming no further "savings", that's 19 ships of which not much more than 13 could be expected to be in Fleet Time. Say, 4 DDs for AD and 4 FFs for ASW (on the thin side), that's over half the operational fleet tied to one operation.
A very simplistic back-of-a-fag-packet assessment; but it does suggest that DD/FF force will be below that needed for our core Maritime commitments. The danger in the CVFs is that further sacrifices in DD/FF numbers may be needed in order to fund them. The alternatives, without additional and much needed increase in the Defence Budget, are to reduce the core tasks at significant risk or rely on NATO (lets not think about EU!) cover for our capability gaps. The other assumption, of course, is that any Carrier operations undertaken would be part of a US Group and sit under (and over) their umbrella.
Although the CVFs are central to current Maritime (and Joint) Doctrine, as per BR1806, one has to wonder at what overall National risk; unless there is a real increase in the Defence Budget.
A very simplistic back-of-a-fag-packet assessment; but it does suggest that DD/FF force will be below that needed for our core Maritime commitments. The danger in the CVFs is that further sacrifices in DD/FF numbers may be needed in order to fund them. The alternatives, without additional and much needed increase in the Defence Budget, are to reduce the core tasks at significant risk or rely on NATO (lets not think about EU!) cover for our capability gaps. The other assumption, of course, is that any Carrier operations undertaken would be part of a US Group and sit under (and over) their umbrella.
Although the CVFs are central to current Maritime (and Joint) Doctrine, as per BR1806, one has to wonder at what overall National risk; unless there is a real increase in the Defence Budget.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is absolutely imperative that the United Kingdom has new aircraft carriers to show its power against rising countries and old enemies. Although economy issues look a little daunting, they will deteriorate far worse with a fall in military superiority. The usual association with carriers and the cold war are as relevant as they ever where, although the use of carriers have been in other efforts continuously it is therefore ignorant to dismiss their usefulness, and as for the cold war, Russia is considered the most urgent threat to the United Kingdoms security with only al Qaeda and Iranian nuclear developments in front. We are already in the 2nd cold war and although this has not widely been presented in the media as people pick up on this it will become more evident, with Russian intelligence agents crawling through systems more now than ever. If you see such threats as irrelevant or non existent then surely you would find typhoons and other aspects as useless as well. If these threats do arise through any circumstances this extortionate price will redeem itself, although in my opinion the decision is a no brainer by simply looking at current political climates, risks in this world are prominent and sadly there is no wallet friendly way around that. There is more to these decisions than meets the eye as well.
not_so_SIS
not_so_SIS
"The Carrier carries Merlin, the worlds premier ASW killer. The number of T23's is largly irrelevant."
Borrocks. Detect, classify, localise, prosecute. Merlin is fantastic at the later ones of these. But without the earlier stages our underwtaer friends are already in (or close to) the TDZ.
ATP1C, ATP28 and the Extacs were and are still relevant.....
Borrocks. Detect, classify, localise, prosecute. Merlin is fantastic at the later ones of these. But without the earlier stages our underwtaer friends are already in (or close to) the TDZ.
ATP1C, ATP28 and the Extacs were and are still relevant.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never went on a Casex where the Frigates were anything other than an annoyance when it came to finding and killing the boats. And tht was when we were using Seakings!
The only better platform than the Merlin is another boat.
The only better platform than the Merlin is another boat.
Inner screen maybe, but then again most Casexs end in some scandiwegian, boxhead or cloggie popping smoke far too close for comfort.
The future at the minute is minimal MPA, vastly reduced number of boats and six cabs on the ship. If I were ASWC, I'd want a wide area asset out there (even if she did ensonify everything for miles)
The future at the minute is minimal MPA, vastly reduced number of boats and six cabs on the ship. If I were ASWC, I'd want a wide area asset out there (even if she did ensonify everything for miles)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't particularly mind which variant of F-35 the UK chooses to buy as they're both fantastic. But I'm assuming that some clever people will have done some exhaustive studies into which model is better for our particular requirements. If the decision they've come to is that the -B is the one, do you really think the best thing to do is to sit around whining that it hasn't got xxx of fuel, when it has more than enough to fulfil its intended roles?
You may well be able to think of a particular scenario where the -C has an advantage over the -B, but if it's not a scenario that the UK has a requirement to be able to fulfil then it's a bit irrelevant
I just think that it is a pity that we will be in a second class of F35 users. Although it will look cool at airshows!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Range
You are right that persistence is the requirement of the moment, and is the big downside of the B. But lets be positive...
1. The B will probably be able to get much closer to the action than the other types because of its reduced reliance on big smooth tarmac. Thereby cutting reaction times, as well as transit fuel burned.
2. For the current types of ops stealth probably isn't such a big deal. The B will be able to add a couple of tanks, which should make a big difference to that 450 combat radius.
3. 450 isn't so shabby, but more is obviously very attractive.
4. I hear that there is some pressure in Australia for them to split a small part of their buy and get some B's for the LHDs. If we give Canada a similar nudge in that direction the CVF could alternate hosting a 'commonwealth squadron' on deployments. That would take pressure off our own units, keep the carriers topped up and be a great pr exercise. I'm sure they'd also make a great contribution. The B version makes this kind of exercise very easy.
1. The B will probably be able to get much closer to the action than the other types because of its reduced reliance on big smooth tarmac. Thereby cutting reaction times, as well as transit fuel burned.
2. For the current types of ops stealth probably isn't such a big deal. The B will be able to add a couple of tanks, which should make a big difference to that 450 combat radius.
3. 450 isn't so shabby, but more is obviously very attractive.
4. I hear that there is some pressure in Australia for them to split a small part of their buy and get some B's for the LHDs. If we give Canada a similar nudge in that direction the CVF could alternate hosting a 'commonwealth squadron' on deployments. That would take pressure off our own units, keep the carriers topped up and be a great pr exercise. I'm sure they'd also make a great contribution. The B version makes this kind of exercise very easy.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the decision was more based on cost than capability - fitting cats (and all the support stuff) is pretty expensive and quite risky as they were looking at some fancy electromag thing, iirc.
In other words, econo-model aircraft carriers. Can't afford all the add-ons and options.
Question: do you contemplate operating these two Invincibles-with-elephantitis in the Persian Gulf?
In other words, econo-model aircraft carriers. Can't afford all the add-ons and options.
Question: do you contemplate operating these two Invincibles-with-elephantitis in the Persian Gulf?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious N and Others,
How many C17 loads does it take to get the POL to your DOBs - oh yes, it comes by road, from a maritime hub having travelled by sea - as does about 80% of the support for deployed land ops. Best you have CVF and its merry FF/DD/SM/embarked air to protect the supply routes, or you have no operation. And while they are there why not fly from them?
How many C17 loads does it take to get the POL to your DOBs - oh yes, it comes by road, from a maritime hub having travelled by sea - as does about 80% of the support for deployed land ops. Best you have CVF and its merry FF/DD/SM/embarked air to protect the supply routes, or you have no operation. And while they are there why not fly from them?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CODs for Future Carriers?
Modern Elmo
Do you or anyone else know if our "econo-model" carriers will be either equipped with, or able to handle, Alize, C2/Greyhound-type COD ac?
In the old days the RN used Gannets but obiously the "thru deck cruiser" versions that the RN now call call carriers have lacked this ability. IMHO it would seem a major oversight if this capability wasn't built-in to the new ones....
MB
Do you or anyone else know if our "econo-model" carriers will be either equipped with, or able to handle, Alize, C2/Greyhound-type COD ac?
In the old days the RN used Gannets but obiously the "thru deck cruiser" versions that the RN now call call carriers have lacked this ability. IMHO it would seem a major oversight if this capability wasn't built-in to the new ones....
MB
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean Falklands 2? Since the envisaged airgroups dwarf the current committed CAS aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan which enjoy HNS.
Argentina's military threat raises fears over Falklands - Telegraph