Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 17th Jun 2012, 19:57
  #1101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Courtney

I have thought about it and stand by my post. Go away and check out the devil in the detail of the linked article.

Last edited by lj101; 17th Jun 2012 at 20:00.
lj101 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 20:07
  #1102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Well, your quote is incorrect and, once again, the point is being well and truly avoided. 29 Sqn did not go home between Ascension and Stanley. Had the Harriers been capable of doing the FI air defence, they would never have bothered extending the runway and then moving the real AD jets down there.

And here's the point. The new carriers will need proper AD. Carriers are extremely high value assets. Fast jets are not. But the first issue in chosing your carrier-borne jets is "can it defend the carrier". Then we should look at all the other capabilities.

The aircraft we choose will dictate the carrier's configuration. As things stand, the current choice MAY not cut it.

If the bad guys get to the carrier and sink it, there's no point in even discussing what else she or her jets can do.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 20:21
  #1103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Had the Harriers been capable of doing the FI air defence, they would never have bothered extending the runway and then moving the real AD jets down there.
Sorry, I think the Harrier pilots, prior to the arrival of the mighty Phantom, may have felt they had been doing some rather sterling AD.

I was strongly in the F35 C supporters club as well as leasing/buying SuperHornets, a massively capable platform. We aren't getting either and I don't see the doom and gloom with the VSTOL option. My opinion is that fuel/range / endurance comparisons are largely misleading, much as they were when comparing Harrier to GR4.

Last edited by Justanopinion; 17th Jun 2012 at 20:23.
Justanopinion is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 20:23
  #1104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
The new carriers will need proper AD
which is why I'm convinced these carriers will never be anything more than oversized aircraft ferries, with the aircraft going ashore at the first opportunity.
With either version of the F-35, the carriers cannot defend themselves - and please don't try to say the T45 will cover that.

Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 17th Jun 2012 at 20:40.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 20:25
  #1105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
I know the 1 Sqn guys were doing a bloody great job. That wasn't what I said. This isn't about the FI 82 thing. It's about the future defence of the fleet and having the right assets to do it.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 20:27
  #1106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Milo, thank you. Back on target.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 20:42
  #1107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
Quite an apt phrase - as thats what those two carriers are, bloody great targets.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 21:01
  #1108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Courtney,

I think that Justanopinion was actually referring to the Sea Harriers who were down there in 82 doing AD, not 1 Sqdn who weren't. (You were, weren't you?)

Having done what they had done to the Argentinian Air Force, The Shars were providing AD from Stanley and the two carriers day in day out until well into September 82. 1 Sqdn helped out. Truth be told, there was little or no credible air threat immediately after June 82, more on political grounds rather then military.

For what it's worth, the defence of any future carrier task group will be layered, with T45 as part of the layering. The AD part provided by F-35B would be complementary, not solo. The fact that the carrier can move around also helps reduce threats. Not something an airfield can do.

Best regards as ever

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 21:24
  #1109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Engines,

Right to the point as ever. The Falklands issue is a bit of an aside to this one. I was only saying that we took over from 1 Sqn at Stanley. Again, I would never belittle the SHars.

I go back to my main point, which is, we will have a carrier again. It needs the full group that goes with it. It needs the best AD (air superiority, perhaps) and then projection and and a proper strike/attack capability. But the AD comes first. As I said before, no use having a carrier if you leave it vulnerable and it gets hit.

Courtney

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 17th Jun 2012 at 21:25.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 21:31
  #1110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,983
Sorry, I think the Harrier pilots, prior to the arrival of the mighty Phantom, may have felt they had been doing some rather sterling AD.
The problem was that they didn't do sterling AD - way too many Argies got through with the loss of SHEFFIELD ,COVENTRY, SIR GALAHAD, ARDENT, ANTELOPE and ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (plus countless lives wasted or ruined).

As Courtney says, F35B may do the job, or more likely it will be a compromise like the SHar was...

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 22:14
  #1111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Originally Posted by LJ
The problem was that they didn't do sterling AD - way too many Argies got through with the loss of SHEFFIELD ,COVENTRY, SIR GALAHAD, ARDENT, ANTELOPE and ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (plus countless lives wasted or ruined)
Might I suggest that a conventional carrier with decent AEW might have prevented those losses and yes rough weather can be a bitch but it works both ways and of course the carrier is mobile. Totally agree with Milo regarding these new mobile airfields, an opportunity lost but it is over, the decision has been made.
glojo is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 22:43
  #1112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,983
Glojo

Ref: AEW

I couldn't agree more - as did BWord in post #1096 that started this debate

However, you can't kill them with electrons so you need a decent AD fighter to service the AEW detections.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2012, 23:28
  #1113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,356
Engines (#1124): surely the entire history of air warfare has shown that carriers, despite their mobility, are quite vulnerable to air attack (esp Midway but also Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf), not to mention submarines - and that airfields, despite their immobility, are rather difficult to permanently disable (Battle of Britain, Stanley 1982, Iraq 1991)... just saying.

Last edited by Easy Street; 18th Jun 2012 at 00:24.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 00:16
  #1114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
The problem was that they didn't do sterling AD - way too many Argies got through
What were the odds? 10:1 in terms of available aircraft 20:1? No AEW. The carriers stood off too far to allow the Shars to be effective. The equipment for a land-based airfield was sunk. The Galahad problem was due to an idiot who didn't listen to experience over landing the troops
Overall, given the circumstances the Harriers did sterling AD given the constraints of the poor decisions others made for them.


But thats not the issue.
You now have the scenario of a pair of large targets, built to commercial Lloyds safety standards - not military - with no armour, no native air defence, flying a mix of bomb trucks, geriatric AEW Sea Kings and a substandard antisubmarine platform (if they bother to embark ASW Merlin). Not enough T45 to screen the carrier, no spare ASW frigates and if the decision is to "go littoral" i.e. into the Iranian Gulf - no mine protection.
Without a balanced surface support group these carriers are dead ducks.
Without a balanced air defence group they are nothing more than floating coffins
What is the defence against mines? submarines? surface swarm? You can't claim "but the ship is mobile"...thats b******. If the ship has to be able to launch and recover its aircraft, it has to be within range of shorebased sensors and aircraft. ergo it is very very vulnerable, unless it was capable of self-defence against aerial attack. Which it isn't.
And PLEASE no b******S about "layered defence". What layers? Lets hope someone sees the launch and calls it in / oh that failed so the satellite will get it/ oh the T45 can see over the horizon.....oh it can't ../ oh F*** ...OK the fighters will get it / fighters what fighters..we drop bombs so f off...

Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:16.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 00:32
  #1115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Interesting view.

I would argue that in 1982 one power considered Stanley so vulnerable that it didn't base any high value assets there. They also, despite having a significant anti-shipping capability failed to so much as scratch the British carriers. So one could argue that Stanley was soft killed fairly easily and the carriers were unscathed. Others would argue that the carriers were partially soft killed as they were pushed east.

As for Iraq in 1991 perhaps we could have a quick look at the Iraqi airfields significantly damaged by air attack (a reasonable amount), the ability of Scud to take on fixed targets including airfields to the south (some/ a little) and the USN flat tops sunk by the Iraqis (nil).

As for Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe were doing a pretty good job of counter air, including airfield attack, until the (fairly well publicised) switch to the bombing of cities.

I suppose there are lies, damn lies, statistics and opinions on aircraft carriers!
orca is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 00:51
  #1116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
We are in a polarised debate, so here's a question for you.

You are COMAO leader at CQWI 12-01, out of Lossie for argument's sake. You get a mission to attack Machrihanish with the RAF orbat at your disposal (whatever our [email protected] is these days). There will be some GBAD and some DCA but the team should be able to crack it, don't you think? Usual brief - get the Typhoons airborne, all form the conga behind them and wait for the comforting shouts that the Alarms are airborne.

Your mate, gets day 2. Sink the Stennis. It's somewhere within 300nm. We think. It only has one picket ship - do your worst. There will be some DCA and a Standard 2 threat. Nowhere to hide and no Sea Eagle. Best of luck finding it without MR2 - and you need to be done by tea time because that's when they're launching their alpha strike at you.

Who has the better day? Can the entire RAF actually sink a carrier? Can it dismantle an airfield?

My answers: You. No. Yes.
orca is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 07:36
  #1117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
I've flown the F-35B and I've chased it an awful lot in a legacy F-18. The F-35B easily out-climbs the Hornet in dry power and it out-accelerates it in burner through the transonic region. Whenever I did BFM in a Hornet the amount of time I spent between 7.0 and 7.5g could be measured in a handful of seconds (if at all).

So to me it is nonsensical to say that F-35B lacks performance and capability you need and then hanker after the Hornet. Happy to be told why I'm wrong by the Top Trumps brigade though?

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
SSSETOWTF is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 10:00
  #1118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Originally Posted by LJ
Ref: AEW

I couldn't agree more - as did BWord in post #1096 that started this debate

However, you can't kill them with electrons so you need a decent AD fighter to service the AEW detections.
I totally agree with the words being uttered by folks and I have continually voiced my concerns regarding the choice of aircraft\air wing. One of my snippets which I believe was post #671 but some may argue it has nothing to do with 'No cats and flaps'

Choosing the aircraft has to be done alongside of choosing the type of base it operates from. Should we learn from previous conflicts and if so what lessons can be learnt from the Falklands where Harriers sometimes only had a 10 minute ability to remain over target before having to return back to their carriers, no tanking ability, back home to refuel. AEW, AEW and AEW.... The importance of that asset cannot be emphasised enough and the days of surface skimming missiles coming in from a maximum of 50 miles are over. Is the helicopter AEW capability good enough to detect long range incoming surface missiles and would we then need several aircraft to give adequate cover? Would choosing the -B prevent the Royal Navy from having the AEW cover it would need for any future conflict?
Milo is hitting the nail on the head and others are also nibbling away at issues I consider to being very relevant.

What will the aircraft carrier be used for?

If it is an aircraft transporter then load it to the gills with the F-35B and enjoy the ride.

If it is to be used as an aircraft carrier to project independent, self supporting power projection then we need a very large wallet or in RAF talk... handbag

If we want to play the big boy's game and have a completely self supporting battle group then it has to be done properly. At the moment the only AEW aircraft we have is the Sea King helicopter and is that good enough? Once we put the carrier into harm's way then it MUST have the best AEW available.

The type 45 destroyer is a state of the art air defence weapon but at what range can it detect incoming sea skimming missiles? It will need to work in conjunction with a suitable AEW asset that is working away from the battle group, but still under the protective umbrella of it.

This new carrier will probably be the most expensive asset in the Royal Navy and it has to be protected; I fear this issue has not received the attention it deserves or if it has then will ever be deployed to far away places where it cannot be defended by land based aircraft?

Wittering humour
Hopefully we have first class anti-submarine assets apart from the MR4A that can defend our carrier battle groups Or is this an 'Astute' point
glojo is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 10:14
  #1119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Glojo, I couldn't agree more!

The story now is that we're dropping at least 10 billion on the carriers and their on board assets, with water pistol AEW capability to defend them. The Sea king was great for the small deck carriers, but we are getting 70,000 tonne monsters with as many as 3 squadrons of very, very expensive jets deployed on them; and for the sake of saving 700 million this side of 2015, we're willing to put all those very expensive assets at risk. T

This of course, coming on top of the fact that Dave-B is the most expensive F35 to buy and operate, while simultaneously being the least capable, with the most limited scope for development and most likely to receive the chop in and defence sequestor.

Really?? The decision making process that went into the reversal was seen as logical, was it? Christ almighty.
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2012, 10:38
  #1120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by SSSETOWTF View Post
I've flown the F-35B and I've chased it an awful lot in a legacy F-18. The F-35B easily out-climbs the Hornet in dry power and it out-accelerates it in burner through the transonic region.
Thanks an awful lot for that precious first hand knowledge!
That gives some perspective beyond the raw figures.

I'm glad to learn that the 'B' can hold its own at least against a Hornet. (Clean ?)
Even though the Hornet might not be considered the gold standard of aerial combat that really gives some hope that even the 'B' won't befairing too bad in that area.

To get some more perspective: Did you also have a chance of directly comparing it to a relatively clean F-16?

Last edited by henra; 18th Jun 2012 at 11:13.
henra is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.