Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Imagegear]

...and short clip showing the actual:

Just watch out for the musical din...

SRVL and the usuall suspects

From 3:30 onwards

Interesting that the bring back with vertical is 5000 lbs, while with rolling it is 7000 lbs + additional fuel.
It does not seem to me to be such a significant difference?

IG

[Not_a_boffin]

Translate one ton of expensive complex weapons into financial value and you might have a different PoV.

[Bengo]

Originally Posted by Imagegear

...and short clip showing the actual:

Just watch out for the musical din...

SRVL and the usuall suspects

From 3:30 onwards

Interesting that the bring back with vertical is 5000 lbs, while with rolling it is 7000 lbs + additional fuel.
It does not seem to me to be such a significant difference?

IG

It is not only the cash benefit, but the non- loss of an item of which the ship has a limited supply. If we were still reliant on iron bombs and had several magazines full of them then maybe throwing them away is tolerable. The same is not true of, say, AIM 120 or something even newer.

N

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by Hot 'n' High

It's working up the Ship/Sqdn "Shag" capability that may take more time ... but probably not much more time. Depends when the capability itself is cleared for use operationally

The aircraft used for the tests were instrumented. Perhaps it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the data gathered will be used to develop an SRVL version of Raytheon’s JPALS.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-enter-457458/

[Mogwi]

Originally Posted by Imagegear

I recently watched the last episode of the QE and there were trials involving a Civvy, ex-RAF/RN test pilot doing SRVL. A first wave off, followed by a very precise SRVL and stopping within the distance. Views from the cockpit as well as from Flyco. Later they indicated that trials were to continue using a weapons load.

Very, very impressive and a world first for the RN/QE .

SVRL


IG

For the sake of historical accuracy, the first ever SRVL was carried out onboard HMS Hermes on 1st May 1982 after a Sea Harrier had suffered enemy 20mm HE damage to the fin and tailplane area and the pilot did not know if the reaction controls were still functioning. It proved to be a non-event - and I have the damaged part of the fin on my study wall!

"I counted them all out - and I counted them all back again!"

BZ for the F35 team though.

mog

[Asturias56]

When is the first full naval squadron of F-35's going to be ready?

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

When is the first full naval squadron of F-35's going to be ready?

The result of 5 seconds Google-Fu:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/809_Naval_Air_Squadron

In September 2013 it was announced that the first Royal Navy squadron equipped with the F-35 Lightning II would be named 809 Naval Air Squadron with the nickname "Immortals". It will re-commission in April 2023 as the UK's second operational F-35B squadron after 617 Squadron RAF...

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-org...l-air-squadron

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

When is the first full naval squadron of F-35's going to be ready?

If you're talking about the UK, no such thing. The plan AIUI is for all squadrons to be joint-manned irrespective of numberplate.

If you're talking about "Navy" squadrons VFA101 has been and gone.

[Timelord]

if the RAF and RN can magic up some pilots between them!!

[Hot 'n' High]

Originally Posted by Mogwi

For the sake of historical accuracy, the first ever SRVL was carried out onboard HMS Hermes on 1st May 1982 ........

Cheers Mogwi! I was not dreaming it then! Phew! I was starting to think I'd lost the plot (even more than usual!) and was making that up in my post at #5725! I was fairly sure it was talked about as an option which could be used if required but I don't recall it being needed, at least not during any of my times on the CVSs.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Timelord

if the RAF and RN can magic up some pilots between them!!

Sad but true, apparently, particularly in the wake of the black hole induced by the carrier gap (remember the late Kristian Ward's altercation with David Cameron in Oct 2010 about being 'sacked'?).

UK Military Flying Training – heading for the cliff-edge?

Originally Posted by SOPHY GARDNER from the RAeS Air Power Specialist Group 12 Mar 2019

There are approximately 350 trainee pilots from the Royal Navy, Army and RAF in the military flying training pipeline and they are currently waiting for an average of 58 weeks between Elementary Flying Training and fast jet training...

The FOI response stated that a future pilot graduating from RAF Cranwell after Initial Officer Training can expect his combined holding and training to get to a frontline Operational Conversion Unit to take up to 90 months. That is seven and a half years. Now some of that is taken up with the training itself but several years of that will also be holding. That officer then has to qualify as combat ready before they enter the formal system of operational tours and annual appraisals as aircrew...

[Asturias56]

Thanks guys - over three years then - assuming as you say they can train enough pilots

[Asturias56]

The latest " World Naval Review" repeats that the RAF are aiming to stop F-35B numbers at 48 and order F-35A for the bulk of the remaining "requirement"

[cokecan]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

The latest " World Naval Review" repeats that the RAF are aiming to stop F-35B numbers at 48 and order F-35A for the bulk of the remaining "requirement"

i think the most remarkable thing about that old chesnut is the clear deliniation between the RAF/MOD, where you never hear it from anyone above Leading Cadet in the ATC, and the internet warrior world where you hear it all the time.

in land based operations the A has a number on undeniable advantages over the B - but in the defence bigger picture, the advantages than an all B fleet has: training and logistics, as well as the ability to surge an almost endless number of B's and B air and ground crew to/through the carriers - massively outweigh the advantages (range and internal carriage of a 2000lb class weapon) that the A has over the B.

everyone in the RAF understands that, and has understood that for years.

[Asturias56]

WNR is a pretty respected annual publication - I'm sure they talk to people above Leading Cadet in the ATC, and the internet warrior world.............

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by Mogwi

For the sake of historical accuracy, the first ever SRVL was carried out onboard HMS Hermes.......

Is there a specific reason why SRVL was only used on Sea Harrier in an emergency, rather than as a routine procedure as is planned for F-35B? Was it just unnecessary, or was it thought about but aircraft/ship were unsuitable?

[Hot 'n' High]

Originally Posted by Video Mixdown

Is there a specific reason why SRVL was only used on Sea Harrier in an emergency, rather than as a routine procedure as is planned for F-35B? Was it just unnecessary, or was it thought about but aircraft/ship were unsuitable?

While not involved in formal discussions on the topic (being a simple humble Spanners) I think it was down to deck logistics. The aft end was always full of SHARs ranged round the aft deck, tails over the oggin. To do a SRVL would, from my memories, have involved clearing the deck. The new carriers are much wider, presumably designed with SRVL or even CTOL in mind. Don't forget, IIR, the CVS was originally to support RW only. The fact the SHAR appeared was one of those decisions back in the early '70's when the full impact of the demise of the old Ark Royal with the F4 was realised. Before my time that discussion! Others may/will know more! Once at sea with the SHAR, the practical limitations vis-a-vie returning to Mum with any payload were fully realised and the F35 SRVL requirement was probably derived from that experience. Lesson learned? For once, looks that way! Cheers, H 'n' H

[Davef68]

Originally Posted by Hot 'n' High

The new carriers are much wider, presumably designed with SRVL or even CTOL in mind.

Definitely, the deskspace was designed to allow for an angled deck if they had pursued the CATOBAR option

[Asturias56]

Continuing to delve into the latest World Naval Review in their review of the future of the USN CVN 's they point out that it costs as much to refuel a Ford as it would have cost to buy a QE - thus the proposal in Feb 2019 (rescinded) not to extend the life of the Harry S Truman and use the money elsewhere.

A QE could operate a small airwing and if equipped with drones could have a similar reach to a Ford - which has all the bells and whistles but operates aircraft of limited range

[Mogwi]

Originally Posted by Video Mixdown

Is there a specific reason why SRVL was only used on Sea Harrier in an emergency, rather than as a routine procedure as is planned for F-35B? Was it just unnecessary, or was it thought about but aircraft/ship were unsuitable?

Yes, the manoeuvre was deemed to carry unwarranted risk because of the restricted deck width and poor braking ability of the SHAR on a wet (slippery) deck. It was therefore not cleared for use aboard CVS. However - needs must and yes, the deck was cleared of all aircraft except in the "graveyard" forward of the island for my landing. Actually managed to stop the jet just short of the ramp!

Mog