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

[Willard Whyte]

glojo, you're asking short-term Whitehall 'residents' to indulge in long-term defence planning. Shame on you.

[Milo Minderbinder]

by the time the F-35 is due for replacement the carriers will be due for a major constructional refit anyway, so catapults - if needed - could be fitted then.
But by then manned aircraft will be too vulnerable to use anything - it will all be missiles, UAVs, railguns and pulsed energy weapons

[peter we]

"Have we asked what aircraft would ever replace the F-35B once it reaches its sell by date? The reason for this strange question is that a carrier is not a short term ship with a life span of just 10 or even twenty years."

Modern Military aircraft have a very long lifespan. The Harrier (1969) is going to be in service over fifty years as is the F-18 (1983) and other aircraft like the C-130 (1957), F-16 (1978). The Tornado (1979) should stay in service for forty years at least.

The reason why there was a high turnover of aircraft types at the start of the jet age is that the aircraft were too limited to operate effectively and caused huge death rates on carriers.

[Willard Whyte]

I think the high turnover of almost any aircraft type until ~30 years ago was due to the rapid advance of technology and knowledge in materials*, systems, and propulsion - all with regard to both weapons and airframes. Only in the field of aerodynamics has knowledge, albeit sometimes often in theory, advanced little since the 50s; the boffins in white coats had it pretty much sussed by then.

*It could be argued that only the advance in material tech & knowledge has made advances in other areas possible, where advances were only held back by lack of suitable alloys, composites and semi-conductors.

The AV-8B was essentially a completely new design compared to the Harrier/AV-8A; only the general layout stayed the same - although admittedly it will have been in service ~35 years when, (if), F-35B takes over.

[glojo]

Originally Posted by Milo

by the time the F-35 is due for replacement the carriers will be due for a major constructional refit anyway, so catapults - if needed - could be fitted then.
But by then manned aircraft will be too vulnerable to use anything - it will all be missiles, UAVs, railguns and pulsed energy weapons

First part of your reply:

I hope you are right but I dread to think of the work involved in ripping apart an operational ship to install this equipment

Second part
Possible but unlikely, my thoughts are that the Aircraft Carrier is more than a carrier of aircraft.. It is a huge statement of both military and political power. Look at the American ship building program... They clearly think there is a future for this type of vessel.

I am NOT saying we can afford to go down this route but giving the EU £50m per day does not do us any favours (oops did I say that)

Peter We
I fear you are giving an answer I would expect from a politician.

Harrier lifespan 1969..

When did the first squadrons of this aircraft go operational and deploy on an aircraft carrier, and when did the last squadron deploy on a carrier?

I do not mean a quick flying visit to see if the aircraft can land on the deck...

I would suggest that instead of 1969 you might want to go forward a few years and start looking at the 1980's?

Clue

At the end of March 1980 the Royal Navy Sea Harrier IFTU was redesignated No.899 Sqn, becoming a Headquarters Squadron performing operational training duties, and at the same time No.800 Sqn, the first operational squadron, was formed. No.800 Sqn served briefly on HMS Invincible before transferring to HMS Hermes, an old anti-submarine/command carrier. In January 1981 a second operational unit, No.801 Sqn was commissioned to serve aboard the Invincible.

An amazing consideration when we think back to how this aircraft performed just two years later

The last FULL squadron that deployed on a carrier might be a bit more controversial but hopefully you and I will accept that these aircraft did not get anywhere NEAR the lifespan we must expect from such an expensive ship?

Yes some modern military aircraft may well last for over 50years but do we include the F117 in that statement and the F-35B is an amazing piece of kit that might be described as a flying computer and we all know how quickly those things get out of date? (polite question)

Is that last statement relevant I have NO idea but I would genuinely love to hear what better qualified folks have to say on that very specific issue as I cannot help asking how quickly technology will overtake the advantages of this aircraft and make it just as vulnerable as aircraft costing a small percentage of this amazing aircraft.

[Willard Whyte]

Yes some modern military aircraft may well last for over 50years but do we include the F117 in that statement

Even that managed 25 years until its official retirement in '08.

Although, allegedly one (or more) has been spotted flying since then, the YouTube footage won't play though.

[kbrockman]

If jane's are anywhere near correct, this is certainly going to be one hell of an expensive fighter jet.
Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane


For us, replacing the F16, it would mean going from 7.000-ish $/ flighthour
to a whopping 21.000$/hr, a 3 fold in operating expenses, after the already expensive purchasing costs that need to be made.

Even the Typhoon and Rafale are cheaper, despite being 2 engined vs 1 engined planes.
21.000 for the A
31.000 for the B and C.
For the F35, Keep in mind though that these numbers are estimates based on reasonable assumptions, while fuel needs and other costs are fairly easy to calculate, there are some areas that still need to be better determined, as such the numbers could go down a bit, but also up, the general ballpark should be correct though.

Just to put things in perspective, the F22 is supposed to be 70.000, using the same cost phylosophy.

[peter we]

"I would suggest that instead of 1969 you might want to go forward a few years and start looking at the 1980's? "

You are proving my point, aircraft continue to develop and evolve, there is no reason why the F-35 cannot do the same as long as the requirement is there.
It is questionable whether a manned fighter will be required in 50 years, but honestly why should we care and how can we?

[glad rag]

And why should we care how much they cost?

Oh we don't know that either.......

[peter we]

>> And why should we care how much they cost?

..in 50 years time. Given that we have no idea if the f-35 maybe canceled in the next year worrying about it lifespan is silly, isn't it?

[glojo]

I would suggest that instead of 1969 you might want to go forward a few years and start looking at the 1980's? "

You are proving my point, aircraft continue to develop and evolve, there is no reason why the F-35 cannot do the same as long as the requirement is there.
It is questionable whether a manned fighter will be required in 50 years, but honestly why should we care and how can we?

Difficult to do as the only fixed wing fast jet strike aircraft to embark on a carrier is the F-18 and that aircraft has possibly been upgraded like no other before. Will it be even possible to do anything similar to this extremely complex, eye wateringly expensive aircraft? If we look at our own 'backyard' then the SHAR deployed onto carriers in the 1980's and sadly sea going deployments were ended in 2000, the aircraft being removed from service in 2006. If our carriers ever join the fleet, I would like to think they would remain in service much longer than a mere quarter of a century.

Will there be a place for piloted strike aircraft or will missiles\UAV's rule the skies? Who knows but as a projection of power I cannot see anything on the horizon that will 'out trump' the carrier?

The F-35 is on paper an amazing aircraft and I for one would like to see this thing be the success that we hopefully all hope it should be, but the 'B'??.

[peter we]

"would like to see this thing be the success that we hopefully all hope it should be, but the 'B'??. "

The B is irreplaceable. Who would have thought there would ever be a successor to the Harrier? Evolving it will be the only practical solution to the many worlds navies that will eventually use it.

"Will it be even possible to do anything similar to this extremely complex, eye wateringly expensive aircraft?"

Until its in full production and in service we won't know the true cost of it. But its much cheaper than the F-22.

[Bastardeux]

Who knows but as a projection of power I cannot see anything on the horizon that will 'out trump' the carrier?

IMHO I would argue that not building the carriers/selling them, and spending the money on 13/14? well financed Typhoon squadrons, MPA, more A400s, whatever you would spend the money on, would provide much more power projection capability than 2 lumbering, unprotected turkeys with 6 un-serviceable and still developmental jets on them that have bankrupted us for the pleasure of their company.

Why do we have to get the 'best' as soon as it comes out, why can't we stick with the tried and tested and move with the curve of platforms hitting their maturity rather than their infancy? Lets be honest, no-ones going to deploy their F35s this side of 2020...maybe even 2025, the way things are going; so why do we need it on operational squadrons before then?

[Willard Whyte]

IMHO I would argue that not building the carriers/selling them, and spending the money on 13/14? well financed Typhoon squadrons, MPA, more A400s, whatever you would spend the money on, would provide much more power projection capability than 2 lumbering, unprotected turkeys with 6 un-serviceable and still developmental jets on them that have bankrupted us for the pleasure of their company.

There could come a time when the various tin-pot nations in an area of strategic interest to the UK make it awkward to overfly, let alone land and 'project power'.

[idle bystander]

Carrier conversion

Glojo:

I hope you are right but I dread to think of the work involved in ripping apart an operational ship to install this equipment

Well it's been done before. Think of VICTORIOUS coming out of a 6 year refit in 1955, aged 15 years, 30ft longer, with steam catapults, and an angled deck so large that they had to demolish a building beside the dry dock at the last moment before they could float her out.
And ARK ROYAL (IV), in 1969 with a new waist catapult instead of the starboard forward cat and direct acting arrestor gear, completely redesigning the hangar deck-head. It's surprising what you can do to an old hull.

Lovely discussion, chaps, keep it up.

An old badger (of a sort)

[Milo Minderbinder]

"IMHO I would argue that not building the carriers/selling them, and spending the money on 13/14? well financed Typhoon squadrons, MPA, more A400s, whatever you would spend the money on, would provide much more promotion projection capability"

There you are, back in the original RAF speak

[glojo]

Well it's been done before. Think of VICTORIOUS coming out of a 6 year refit in 1955, aged 15 years, 30ft longer, with steam catapults, and an angled deck so large that they had to demolish a building beside the dry dock at the last moment before they could float her out.
And ARK ROYAL (IV), in 1969 with a new waist catapult instead of the starboard forward cat and direct acting arrestor gear, completely redesigning the hangar deck-head. It's surprising what you can do to an old hull.

Lovely discussion, chaps, keep it up.

An old badger (of a sort)

I take aboard what you are saying and we NEED Mr Boffin to offer his thoughts regarding this and doing a little research I see that the good ship Centaur also underwent this type of conversion with her hydraulic catapults removed and steam catapults installed, plus the invaluable angled flight deck. They must have quite literally torn those ship's apart to do that type of 'plumbing!' It would be so interesting to compare costs taking into account inflation costs of materials etc

Paging Not-a-Boffin, paging Mr Not-a-Boffin.

[Bastardeux]

There could come a time when the various tin-pot nations in an area of strategic interest to the UK make it awkward to overfly, let alone land and 'project power'.

I'm not disputing that, but given a constricted budget, I think the idea that these carriers will give us more ability to project power compared to other ways of using our finite resources, is a complete fallacy. All in for the carriers and JSF, we're looking at upwards of 15 billion...at least; and for what? 6 jets on the worlds biggest, defenceless floating target. That's a lot of F35As or Typhoons, and even more tanks and helicopters. In my mind, having all those things in usable numbers, presents a far more formidable fighting force than one that's sacrificed, and plans to sacrifice even more, capabilty to build two empty behemoths.

would provide much more promotion projection capability"

Well if we aren't angling for a promotion, what is our job description??

[Corrona]

Forgive me if it's been asked/pondered before, but I can't help but wonder what the americans would have charged us for a refitted carrier of theirs, a bunch of new f-18's and a smattering of E2's etc.

The problem seems to be that it's nothing to do with getting military bang for your buck, but everything to do with jobs back home....which is fine until the day that you need military capability, when suddenly paying over the odds for a smaller number of ...... (whatever you care to mention) suddenly isn't much use.

[Thelma Viaduct]

I can't ever see the carrier being used without the cover of the US&A and their approval, i.e. Another war where the UK hides behind the master but gives it the big one via politicians ala Hague on the TV to pretend we're still a world player on the cheap. UK hasn't the bollocks to go it alone against a half decent adversary, so the threat to the aircraft transporter/carrier isn't a credible one. US&A will provide the logistics & aew, we'll just be tipping up with a few more aircraft to up their sortie rate and preserve the 'special' relationship.