F22/f35
Single seat / 00
The reason the CVF is a monster is primarily the deck area required to park sufficient aircraft to generate the required sortie numbers / rates, combined with some assumptions as to the max size package you might want to run off that deck. The realisation of this (circa 1999/2000) when actual flypros were put together rather than just shoving 26 a/c in the hangar and 14 on deck was the point at which the design suddenly went from 40000te (the original concept design) to 60000te or so.
Fitting landing craft, vehicle decks, troop spaces and docks (plus 20000 tonnes or so of ballast tankage) to a ship with a sizeable hangar is very definitely non-trivial - particularly if you compare US accommodation stds and manning practices to ours. Then you get to deconfliction issues - r/w slicks and snakes vs f/w CAS and AD. Bear in mind that US LHD never operate without a CVBG when there is any sort of air threat. A UK LHD would have to be all AD or rotary plus CAS, with no in-between.
Shrink the ship and you actually save very little in cost. Try to include the amphib requirements (particularly vehicle decks and surface lift) and for the same size you lose shedloads of fuel, AVCAT and stores. To include it all you get a LOT bigger and we're at the limit of what UK infrastructure will support now.
The reason the CVF is a monster is primarily the deck area required to park sufficient aircraft to generate the required sortie numbers / rates, combined with some assumptions as to the max size package you might want to run off that deck. The realisation of this (circa 1999/2000) when actual flypros were put together rather than just shoving 26 a/c in the hangar and 14 on deck was the point at which the design suddenly went from 40000te (the original concept design) to 60000te or so.
Fitting landing craft, vehicle decks, troop spaces and docks (plus 20000 tonnes or so of ballast tankage) to a ship with a sizeable hangar is very definitely non-trivial - particularly if you compare US accommodation stds and manning practices to ours. Then you get to deconfliction issues - r/w slicks and snakes vs f/w CAS and AD. Bear in mind that US LHD never operate without a CVBG when there is any sort of air threat. A UK LHD would have to be all AD or rotary plus CAS, with no in-between.
Shrink the ship and you actually save very little in cost. Try to include the amphib requirements (particularly vehicle decks and surface lift) and for the same size you lose shedloads of fuel, AVCAT and stores. To include it all you get a LOT bigger and we're at the limit of what UK infrastructure will support now.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, Not A Boffin,
Though I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing the design had gone down the ' Gator ' route from the start.
One thing I've not seen mentioned is, will the CVF's have a ski ramp ?
To pretend the Harrier will be gone, and JSF in place, is optimistic if not downright foolish...
Though I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing the design had gone down the ' Gator ' route from the start.
One thing I've not seen mentioned is, will the CVF's have a ski ramp ?
To pretend the Harrier will be gone, and JSF in place, is optimistic if not downright foolish...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB - cleared that one up then.
Add to that:
1. We've already got Ocean.. (and we'd be fools not to keep Ark in reserve)
2. Do you want to risk a 65-100kt monster inshore?
3. The UK will be able to have a LPH, LPD, LSD and CV all on the same operation, and all not necessarily being in the same place or hitting the same objective.
Compare that to:
1. One big fat target, with all your air force, all your assault troops, and your first wave logistics coming inshore.
Add to that:
1. We've already got Ocean.. (and we'd be fools not to keep Ark in reserve)
2. Do you want to risk a 65-100kt monster inshore?
3. The UK will be able to have a LPH, LPD, LSD and CV all on the same operation, and all not necessarily being in the same place or hitting the same objective.
Compare that to:
1. One big fat target, with all your air force, all your assault troops, and your first wave logistics coming inshore.
00
If we buy Dave B, CVF will have a ramp. If its Dave C, then cat n' trap.
Hulahoop has also hit the nail squarely on the head on the military logic of separate carriers & amphibs. I do think we're headed off down the "fools" route re Ark though. Buzz is that she's not in the best material condition, but having one CVS hull parked in 3 basin (beasties in the water permitting) out to the mid-twenties would make a lot of sense.......
If we buy Dave B, CVF will have a ramp. If its Dave C, then cat n' trap.
Hulahoop has also hit the nail squarely on the head on the military logic of separate carriers & amphibs. I do think we're headed off down the "fools" route re Ark though. Buzz is that she's not in the best material condition, but having one CVS hull parked in 3 basin (beasties in the water permitting) out to the mid-twenties would make a lot of sense.......
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Americans seem to be getting their act together...
19:07 17Apr09 RTRS-PENTAGON-DISCUSSIONS UNDERWAY ON POSSIBLE MULTIYEAR PURCHASE OF LOCKHEED F-35 FIGHTERS FROM 2015 ON
19:37 17Apr09 RTRS-Pentagon eyes multiyear buys of F-35s from 2015
WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The Pentagon hopes to pursue multiyear purchase agreements with Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> for its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters around 2015, chief arms buyer John Young said on Friday.
Young said the department was keen to sign such agreements once production of a new weapon had stabilized and any production issues had been worked out.
He said no "urgent, compelling" multiyear agreements for other weapons systems presented themselves during the fiscal 2010 budget process, but the Pentagon would revisit the issue again when preparing the fiscal 2011 budget.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa) (([email protected]; + 1 202 354 5807; Reuters Messaging: [email protected]))
19:07 17Apr09 RTRS-PENTAGON-DISCUSSIONS UNDERWAY ON POSSIBLE MULTIYEAR PURCHASE OF LOCKHEED F-35 FIGHTERS FROM 2015 ON
19:37 17Apr09 RTRS-Pentagon eyes multiyear buys of F-35s from 2015
WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The Pentagon hopes to pursue multiyear purchase agreements with Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> for its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters around 2015, chief arms buyer John Young said on Friday.
Young said the department was keen to sign such agreements once production of a new weapon had stabilized and any production issues had been worked out.
He said no "urgent, compelling" multiyear agreements for other weapons systems presented themselves during the fiscal 2010 budget process, but the Pentagon would revisit the issue again when preparing the fiscal 2011 budget.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa) (([email protected]; + 1 202 354 5807; Reuters Messaging: [email protected]))
One of the reasons I have heard mooted for choosing F35B over F35C is the potential for "rough-strip" ops... please tell me they actually mean "short-field" ops? I can't think of anything more likely to completely destroy the LO characteristics of a spangly new 5th-gen fighter than landing it on a dirt-covered PSP strip! Or have I missed something?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KB,
I'll caveat this with not knowing anyone who has direct knowledge of the Rafael, and only limited direct knowledge of Typhoon.
Short version is that most would take a F-35B into combat over any on your list even with adding in all version of the Hornet. Everyone would prefer the F-22 for A-A of course but…
S/F, FOG
I'll caveat this with not knowing anyone who has direct knowledge of the Rafael, and only limited direct knowledge of Typhoon.
Short version is that most would take a F-35B into combat over any on your list even with adding in all version of the Hornet. Everyone would prefer the F-22 for A-A of course but…
S/F, FOG
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
00,
I'm not a Harrier bubba but the F-35B brings far better avionics/sensor suite/situational awareness to the CAS arena.
I don't know if the engine change interval on your side of the pond is much different than ours but is they are similar than the F-35B "SHOULD" require far less maint. Thus allowing more station time for logistical chain support required; i.e. fewer wrench turners, fewer flights to get new engines in theater, etc.
The supersonic sprint can help. Over Anbar starting in 04 the USAF was supposed to provide all FW tanking; only problem was they wanted larger single gives further away from where the TacAir was needed in order to minimize their support required. The time off station was unacceptable so we had to generate extra sorties to cover the gaps and use our KC-130s for standby tanking in addition to other duties. A higher transit speed should increase the radii of acceptable coverage.
S/F, FOG
I'm not a Harrier bubba but the F-35B brings far better avionics/sensor suite/situational awareness to the CAS arena.
I don't know if the engine change interval on your side of the pond is much different than ours but is they are similar than the F-35B "SHOULD" require far less maint. Thus allowing more station time for logistical chain support required; i.e. fewer wrench turners, fewer flights to get new engines in theater, etc.
The supersonic sprint can help. Over Anbar starting in 04 the USAF was supposed to provide all FW tanking; only problem was they wanted larger single gives further away from where the TacAir was needed in order to minimize their support required. The time off station was unacceptable so we had to generate extra sorties to cover the gaps and use our KC-130s for standby tanking in addition to other duties. A higher transit speed should increase the radii of acceptable coverage.
S/F, FOG
