Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the horse's mouth as to speak:
"The single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets [F-35C] embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than the existing Harriers. It will be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12 Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters.... This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier [HMS PoW] from 2016 to around 2020 [and how much extra cost will that entail?]. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future..."
It does mention on page 28 that there will be a reduction of the planned number of F-35Cs ordered, but nothing else.
"The single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets [F-35C] embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than the existing Harriers. It will be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12 Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters.... This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier [HMS PoW] from 2016 to around 2020 [and how much extra cost will that entail?]. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future..."
It does mention on page 28 that there will be a reduction of the planned number of F-35Cs ordered, but nothing else.
Last edited by mick2088; 19th Oct 2010 at 15:32.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
An air wing of 12 F-35s, what's the point? Just enough to maintain a 4 ship CAP to defend itself. A self-licking lollipop!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
there will be a reduction of the planned number of F-35Cs ordered
Guest
Posts: n/a
Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. This version of the jet has a longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement for precision strike operations in the future. The UK plans to operate a single model of JSF, instead of different land and naval variants.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can there be a reduction in F-35Cs, when none have either been planned or ordered?
Are the phrases "defend itself" and "guarding themselves" referring to the defence of aircraft themselves or defence of the carrier group? I thought the F35 had no AD role as such (other than it's own self protection as it 'fought' its way in and out) and that carrier group protection was provided by the escort ships (assuming there are any of them left following the 'fire sale' going on in the RN ... have they really ditched BRNC???).
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North of the UK's no.1 aircraft carrier parking spot
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35C is designed as a replacement for the F/A-18A and C models of the Hornet (the so-called 'legacy Hornet' since the arrival of the Super Hornet in USN service), therefore is a swing-role A-A/A-G aircraft
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
routinely have 12 fast jets [F-35C] embarked for operations
Similar?
It means that we can train with the other two sqns in UK without having to have a 4th training sqn and an additional number of jets in depth.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least there is no mention of selling one of the carriers, merely that it will be "kept at extended readiness".
SDSR also 'speaks' of an annual increase in the defence budget from 2015 onwards. Although the phrase "We cannot now foresee circumstances in which the UK would require the scale of strike capability previously planned (in referring to operating only one carrier) there's nothing to suggest that if perceived security threats warrant it there won't be moves to have both carriers able to operate at the same time at some point in the future. Indeed, SDSR does mention this option.
They also reckon Dave-C will be 25% cheaper wrt through life costs.
Sorry for the constant 'updates', my first scan didn't glean every detail.
SDSR also 'speaks' of an annual increase in the defence budget from 2015 onwards. Although the phrase "We cannot now foresee circumstances in which the UK would require the scale of strike capability previously planned (in referring to operating only one carrier) there's nothing to suggest that if perceived security threats warrant it there won't be moves to have both carriers able to operate at the same time at some point in the future. Indeed, SDSR does mention this option.
They also reckon Dave-C will be 25% cheaper wrt through life costs.
Sorry for the constant 'updates', my first scan didn't glean every detail.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
I thought the F35 had no AD role as such (other than it's own self protection as it 'fought' its way in and out)
The reports from the evaluations of the program indicate that it has indeed "exceeded" the A-A capabilities of the aircraft it is designed to replace.
Funny that.
* you know, the aircraft much of NATO and many other nations in the world currently rely on as their primary AD fighter (as well as A-G striker)?
Which much of NATO is planning to replace with F-35, which will become their new primary AD fighter (as well as A-G striker)?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW,
Wrong... sorry
http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk...ier-strike.pdf
At least there is no mention of selling one of the carriers, merely that it will be "kept at extended readiness".
http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk...ier-strike.pdf
Our carrier strike capability will be based around a single operational carrier, with a second planned to be kept at extended readiness. This leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier strike capability; or to regenerate more quickly a two carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier strike capability.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
What are the implications of a CTOL carrier without an angled deck?
They were introduced to solve many problems which will now reappear .
There are the issues of landing/recovery cycles,; deck spaces for loaded aircraft etc. Do all next wave aircraft have to be streuck below deck?
With no off landing line/bolter spots, can no one hold deck alert?
With an angled deck an aircraft on approach can deviate left or right before bolting, and with no issues of turbulence around towers; what happens with an aircraft drifting right on the approiach to the POW?
Have all the issues such as these been considered and resolved such that an angled deck is now superfluous?
They were introduced to solve many problems which will now reappear .
There are the issues of landing/recovery cycles,; deck spaces for loaded aircraft etc. Do all next wave aircraft have to be streuck below deck?
With no off landing line/bolter spots, can no one hold deck alert?
With an angled deck an aircraft on approach can deviate left or right before bolting, and with no issues of turbulence around towers; what happens with an aircraft drifting right on the approiach to the POW?
Have all the issues such as these been considered and resolved such that an angled deck is now superfluous?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier strike capability.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac, I recall visiting Farnborough Air Show a few years back and the Thales stand had 2 models of their CVF design, you know the one we said great design now BAE please build it!
One design had a ramp and CVS type deck layout the other looked like this:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfi...ne-dpa2006.jpg
Cats, Traps and Dave-C almost a marriage mad in heaven.
PS So what is the USMC going to do now as the only Dave-B customer?
One design had a ramp and CVS type deck layout the other looked like this:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfi...ne-dpa2006.jpg
Cats, Traps and Dave-C almost a marriage mad in heaven.
PS So what is the USMC going to do now as the only Dave-B customer?