No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Glojo,
It's not really Obama's decision- the Pentagon (Obama) can ask Congress to change Defense funding to cancel/delay/suspend the F35B. It's then up to Congress. They often disagree with the Pentagon- V22, SR 71 and F136 engine are past examples where Congress funded something the Pentagon wasn't ( at the time) keen on.
It boils down to pork-barrel politics and how much political influence the USMC (and UK) can deploy in that process. The USMC have big clout, and if LM are smart they have done as Bell-Boeing did with the V22 and make lots of F35B peculiar components in lots of different states, thus assuring the support of senators in those states.
Nonetheless the fiscal cliff approaches and Congress has either to re-visit US spending and borrowing, or find and approve some serious spending cuts.
N
It's not really Obama's decision- the Pentagon (Obama) can ask Congress to change Defense funding to cancel/delay/suspend the F35B. It's then up to Congress. They often disagree with the Pentagon- V22, SR 71 and F136 engine are past examples where Congress funded something the Pentagon wasn't ( at the time) keen on.
It boils down to pork-barrel politics and how much political influence the USMC (and UK) can deploy in that process. The USMC have big clout, and if LM are smart they have done as Bell-Boeing did with the V22 and make lots of F35B peculiar components in lots of different states, thus assuring the support of senators in those states.
Nonetheless the fiscal cliff approaches and Congress has either to re-visit US spending and borrowing, or find and approve some serious spending cuts.
N
From inception on CVF/QEC there was always a presumption in favour of STOVL operations, based on the early concepts for a STOVL Strike Fighter or SSF. Even when the programme was Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA), this was still the preferred option as it was in the comfort zone and many of the "operability vs sea state" and cost of training arguments seemed compelling. The early assumptions were also that STOVL ships would be significantly smaller and therefore much cheaper.
However, risk to a STOVL programme was always acknowledged and so CTOL and STOBAR (even ASTOBAR) ops were looked at, with what was EF2000 and FA18E.
Round about 2000/2001 it became clear that given the proposed sortie rate and deck parking requirements, there would actually eb little difference in size between STOVL and CTOL options (the STOBAR ones were larger) and so the "adaptable" carrier idea was born to try and balance the risk to the aircraft programme.
It is also important to understand what is meant by "adaptable". It is not (and never has been) the equivalent of Fit To Receive or Fitted For But Not With. It was simply arranging the flightdeck and gallery deck areas such that area and volume for two cats and an angled deck were available and that sufficient weight margin was available to accommodate these systems.
The arresting element is fairly straightforward. Mk7 Mod 4 is a relative self-contained simple system, no major dramas there. The real issue was always about the cats and unfortunately the timing was simply all wrong. EMALS was always the preferred option, but was so immature at the time that it added a lot of risk. Using steam was also risky in terms of through-life cost and people, so you ended up with two different factors militating against CTOL, whatever the "benefits" of the operating mode.
It was only when the payload and cancellation risks of F35B got really serious taht people really started taking the CTOL option seriously IMO.
However, risk to a STOVL programme was always acknowledged and so CTOL and STOBAR (even ASTOBAR) ops were looked at, with what was EF2000 and FA18E.
Round about 2000/2001 it became clear that given the proposed sortie rate and deck parking requirements, there would actually eb little difference in size between STOVL and CTOL options (the STOBAR ones were larger) and so the "adaptable" carrier idea was born to try and balance the risk to the aircraft programme.
It is also important to understand what is meant by "adaptable". It is not (and never has been) the equivalent of Fit To Receive or Fitted For But Not With. It was simply arranging the flightdeck and gallery deck areas such that area and volume for two cats and an angled deck were available and that sufficient weight margin was available to accommodate these systems.
The arresting element is fairly straightforward. Mk7 Mod 4 is a relative self-contained simple system, no major dramas there. The real issue was always about the cats and unfortunately the timing was simply all wrong. EMALS was always the preferred option, but was so immature at the time that it added a lot of risk. Using steam was also risky in terms of through-life cost and people, so you ended up with two different factors militating against CTOL, whatever the "benefits" of the operating mode.
It was only when the payload and cancellation risks of F35B got really serious taht people really started taking the CTOL option seriously IMO.
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
Are you on a low irony diet?
Just making sure. And just to be clear, it's not your ideas that I question, it is absolutely the likelihood of the politicians doing something that makes good military sense.Glojo,
I share your concerns about these. And the carriers really should have come with EMALS etc.
Courtney
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just won't be great at anything and certainly not Carrier Strike if you think in US terms.
The much bigger debate in my mind is whether the RAF are really behind supporting the generation of the embarked capability for the UK or just p*** around squabbling about who flies the aircraft and how much time should be spent at sea?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you to both Bengo and Not_A_Boffin for those answers and as a follow-up to N_A_B were they at any stage considering steam catapults and if so I dread to think of the costs regarding any modifications.
I'm sure we all get rose tinted glasses as age overtakes us and I take aboard comments about adverse sea conditions affecting flying but the joy of a carrier is it is mobile and can attempt to move away from predicted bad weather. In other words see it coming and move to a more suitable location and make use of carrier borne tanking capability to make up for any extra distance. Yes STOVL can probably operate in rougher sea states, but when it gets rough, it can get rough and there can be no flying of any type but there would probably be no flying anyway??
I understand what you are saying about this 'early concept' but was it ever fully explained that this option was going to rule out any decent AEW capability and definitely no tanking. From the outside looking in it looks like we were never going to use these carriers to their full potential and surely even at that early stage of planning the government must have been told the only future aircraft for these ships would be the F35B or NOTHING and nothing is a possibility.
Not_A_Boffin
Are you surprised at the costs for those American super carriers compared to our ships?
The French are building TWO Mistral class warships for Russia and allegedly selling them for $1.7 billion. Yes these ships are approximately a third of the size but they are still large warships and I wonder how much this French ship builder would have charged to fit the cats and traps..
I find it hard to accept the costings but the deal is done, the turns have been made and we are steaming up the creek with some very shaky paddles.
Thanks again for the constructive replies
John
I'm sure we all get rose tinted glasses as age overtakes us and I take aboard comments about adverse sea conditions affecting flying but the joy of a carrier is it is mobile and can attempt to move away from predicted bad weather. In other words see it coming and move to a more suitable location and make use of carrier borne tanking capability to make up for any extra distance. Yes STOVL can probably operate in rougher sea states, but when it gets rough, it can get rough and there can be no flying of any type but there would probably be no flying anyway??
I understand what you are saying about this 'early concept' but was it ever fully explained that this option was going to rule out any decent AEW capability and definitely no tanking. From the outside looking in it looks like we were never going to use these carriers to their full potential and surely even at that early stage of planning the government must have been told the only future aircraft for these ships would be the F35B or NOTHING and nothing is a possibility.
Not_A_Boffin
Are you surprised at the costs for those American super carriers compared to our ships?
The French are building TWO Mistral class warships for Russia and allegedly selling them for $1.7 billion. Yes these ships are approximately a third of the size but they are still large warships and I wonder how much this French ship builder would have charged to fit the cats and traps..
I find it hard to accept the costings but the deal is done, the turns have been made and we are steaming up the creek with some very shaky paddles.
Thanks again for the constructive replies
John
In no particular order.....
Steam cats might actually have been less intrusive than EMALS in some respects, although not in terms of feedwater, condensers etc. It was always going to be op costs and manning that militated against steam.
The seakeeping issue is valid in that (particularly for smaller ships) STOVL aircraft can recover where ship motions are higher. There are limits associated with glidepath, clearance above the rounddown and motion at the touchdown point for CTOL recoveries. For STOVL, the criteria are less onerous - ie you can get aboard with higher ship motions. The rub is that the sea states where these higher motions occur add somewhere between 5 and 10% tops to your overall operability in the North Atlantic and much lower percentages elsewhere. However, as some pointed out, most DL training would be in the SWAPPS so ship motion would have an effect.
Tankers were never considered for STOVL. "Apparently" they are of no use whatsoever to STOVL aircraft. While you can see some sense in that in terms of max recovery weight and bringback (ie there's no point in having more fuel if you can't recover with it), there is a different argument that suggests that a relatively short-legged aircraft might benefit from having Texaco available either post launch or where there is a crowded pattern.
As far as CVN78 is concerned $12Bn doesn't surprise me at all. It's nuclear and therefore has a number of associated safety & survivability measures and the US are far from cutting-edge in their shipbuilding practices. If you compare the level of outfit in a CVN77 block when erected in the building dock compared to QEC, QEC is streets ahead. The reason this is important is that work done aboard ship when the hull is complete usually takes at least 4 times as many manhours as doing it in the sheds (pre-outfitting).
Mistral is a different kettle of fish. You could not fit an angled deck or cats to that ship, it's design and stability margins would preclude it.
The French have already built three, so much of the "overhead", production of design information, CNC tapes, work packages etc has already been done. Hence the relatively low cost. I would also suspect an element of subsidy to keep DCN / STX St Nazaire with a workload as well.
If you're suggesting that the French would have offered a better deal to fit EMALS etc to QEC, don't even go there. Aside from probably being precluded by ITAR, their cost would be equal or higher than doing it in Rosyth. As noted earlier, the quoted UK "cost" includes all sorts of LOD/Capability funding lines that are nothing to do with the actual fit aboard the ship. The costs of the UK QEC programme are everything to do with political indecision, interservice bickering and very little to do with the size and configuration of the ship.
I repeat my earlier statement. They are being built, they appear to be coming along nicely and capabilities can be added to over time. The sheer size of them will make them much more useful than a CVS-sized ship could ever have been. If there is one flaw, it is in having the aircraft procurement controlled by an organisation that is more concerned with it's own interests, hence the current manoeuvring for a split buy of F35A and F35B, perpetuating an inability to deploy from sea-based platforms, rather than maximising commonality and economies of scale.
Again - arguing about what this capability will eventually look like now is a bit like trying to decide whether your six-month old nipper is going to be a Nobel prize winner or a regular contributor to the Jeremy Kyle show.
Steam cats might actually have been less intrusive than EMALS in some respects, although not in terms of feedwater, condensers etc. It was always going to be op costs and manning that militated against steam.
The seakeeping issue is valid in that (particularly for smaller ships) STOVL aircraft can recover where ship motions are higher. There are limits associated with glidepath, clearance above the rounddown and motion at the touchdown point for CTOL recoveries. For STOVL, the criteria are less onerous - ie you can get aboard with higher ship motions. The rub is that the sea states where these higher motions occur add somewhere between 5 and 10% tops to your overall operability in the North Atlantic and much lower percentages elsewhere. However, as some pointed out, most DL training would be in the SWAPPS so ship motion would have an effect.
Tankers were never considered for STOVL. "Apparently" they are of no use whatsoever to STOVL aircraft. While you can see some sense in that in terms of max recovery weight and bringback (ie there's no point in having more fuel if you can't recover with it), there is a different argument that suggests that a relatively short-legged aircraft might benefit from having Texaco available either post launch or where there is a crowded pattern.
As far as CVN78 is concerned $12Bn doesn't surprise me at all. It's nuclear and therefore has a number of associated safety & survivability measures and the US are far from cutting-edge in their shipbuilding practices. If you compare the level of outfit in a CVN77 block when erected in the building dock compared to QEC, QEC is streets ahead. The reason this is important is that work done aboard ship when the hull is complete usually takes at least 4 times as many manhours as doing it in the sheds (pre-outfitting).
Mistral is a different kettle of fish. You could not fit an angled deck or cats to that ship, it's design and stability margins would preclude it.
The French have already built three, so much of the "overhead", production of design information, CNC tapes, work packages etc has already been done. Hence the relatively low cost. I would also suspect an element of subsidy to keep DCN / STX St Nazaire with a workload as well.
If you're suggesting that the French would have offered a better deal to fit EMALS etc to QEC, don't even go there. Aside from probably being precluded by ITAR, their cost would be equal or higher than doing it in Rosyth. As noted earlier, the quoted UK "cost" includes all sorts of LOD/Capability funding lines that are nothing to do with the actual fit aboard the ship. The costs of the UK QEC programme are everything to do with political indecision, interservice bickering and very little to do with the size and configuration of the ship.
I repeat my earlier statement. They are being built, they appear to be coming along nicely and capabilities can be added to over time. The sheer size of them will make them much more useful than a CVS-sized ship could ever have been. If there is one flaw, it is in having the aircraft procurement controlled by an organisation that is more concerned with it's own interests, hence the current manoeuvring for a split buy of F35A and F35B, perpetuating an inability to deploy from sea-based platforms, rather than maximising commonality and economies of scale.
Again - arguing about what this capability will eventually look like now is a bit like trying to decide whether your six-month old nipper is going to be a Nobel prize winner or a regular contributor to the Jeremy Kyle show.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 4th Sep 2012 at 13:36.
As for the B and the election, I am detecting another uptick in Marine activity, with a lot of PR aimed at the first planned operating locations, and the Commandant muttering about starting training before the AF/Navy team has conducted its planned review at Eglin. (Until the Corps can start to train at Eglin, it's stuck on its plans to start moving people and jets to the operating bases.)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mr Boffin,
As usual MANY thanks and I am guessing I have the same opinion as you regarding our Rana esculenta eating friends. Very much tongue in cheek.
Totally accept refuelling was never considered for the STOVL carrier and 100% agree with your thoughts on this issue.
My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.. Still I guess the powers that be have already considered that with the 'B'
I am glad to hear the build is going well and hopefully it will survive post 2015
Totally agree with LowObservable and we are going to see lots of powerful lobbying regarding this aircraft. I wonder just how thick the ice is that it might have to land on? Or should that be walk on?
As usual MANY thanks and I am guessing I have the same opinion as you regarding our Rana esculenta eating friends. Very much tongue in cheek.
Totally accept refuelling was never considered for the STOVL carrier and 100% agree with your thoughts on this issue.
My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.. Still I guess the powers that be have already considered that with the 'B'
I am glad to hear the build is going well and hopefully it will survive post 2015
Totally agree with LowObservable and we are going to see lots of powerful lobbying regarding this aircraft. I wonder just how thick the ice is that it might have to land on? Or should that be walk on?
"My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.."
The USN carriers seem to have survived for decades with aircraft of even more limited endurance. In fact they haven't lost one, since 1945.
The USN carriers seem to have survived for decades with aircraft of even more limited endurance. In fact they haven't lost one, since 1945.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter, how many conflicts have they been involved in against comparable forces with the realistic ability to launch air, ship or submarine attacks against them? Particularly in the era of the super carrier?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dermedicus,
Maybe you have a point. Given the number of countries able to actually threaten an aircraft carrier is so low that not even the USA has bumped into one in the last 67 years, perhaps we should conclude that the risk isn't as high as some suggest.
I go back to a point I have tried to make before. Why is it that the carrier detractors always pick worst case scenarios to show how vulnerable carriers are...but never do the same for any other system?
If Typhoon was a carrier the recent flight of a Chinese Gen 5 fighter would have us all baying for an immediate cancellation of the project. If Challenger was a carrier we wouldn't have built it because the A-10 existed. If Lossie, Marham or Brize were carriers we'd mothball the lot because of the TLAM threat...you get the point.
Maybe you have a point. Given the number of countries able to actually threaten an aircraft carrier is so low that not even the USA has bumped into one in the last 67 years, perhaps we should conclude that the risk isn't as high as some suggest.
I go back to a point I have tried to make before. Why is it that the carrier detractors always pick worst case scenarios to show how vulnerable carriers are...but never do the same for any other system?
If Typhoon was a carrier the recent flight of a Chinese Gen 5 fighter would have us all baying for an immediate cancellation of the project. If Challenger was a carrier we wouldn't have built it because the A-10 existed. If Lossie, Marham or Brize were carriers we'd mothball the lot because of the TLAM threat...you get the point.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If Typhoon was a carrier the recent flight of a Chinese Gen 5 fighter would have us all baying for an immediate cancellation of the project
If the carrier programme was handled the same way the QE and POW would be sold to India et al and a 3rd, smaller, single CVH would be ordered to keep the shipyards busy....
I like the way you make the point, Orca. To me, those are arguments for making the new carriers more capable, not less. Cats, traps, Super Hornets/F-35C, AEW, tankers, jammers, etc.
Your last sentence, ORAC, rings true too, but that would be all about money rather than threats/requirements.
Your last sentence, ORAC, rings true too, but that would be all about money rather than threats/requirements.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peter We
The USN carriers seem to have survived for decades with aircraft of even more limited endurance. In fact they haven't lost one, since 1945.
along with state of the art AEW support? What will the British carriers have to maintain defensive air cover when they are out of range of land based support?I am not convinced we can play this big boy's game, to have the best, we have to pay for the best. If we cannot afford top players, can we play in the premiership and if so for how long?
Assuming an RW AEW capability (Crowsnest) emerges, QEC will have at least equivalent to CVS + SHAR + SKW in terms of air defence capability, but with the ability to embark many more cabs for both AD and strike. F35 is also longer-legged than SHAR and with limited supercruise to supersonic capability (good for intercept).
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Implications of standardising on Dave-C
All,
I had an interesting chat with some thinktankers in town last week about the future of the US defence budget and the impact of sequestration. It was largely agreed that Dave-B is in serious trouble post election (unless Romney wins, in which case the spending cuts will allegedly fall elsewhere... allegedly), leaving the USMC with Dave-C, and the RN largely stuffed.
This led me to think about Dave-B, and was wondering what it would take - a la F-110A Spectre - for the US forces to standardise on Dave-C, with, presumably the USAF jets getting a UAARSI in the back. What would the difference in performance be, and (crucially) would it save any money?
S41
I had an interesting chat with some thinktankers in town last week about the future of the US defence budget and the impact of sequestration. It was largely agreed that Dave-B is in serious trouble post election (unless Romney wins, in which case the spending cuts will allegedly fall elsewhere... allegedly), leaving the USMC with Dave-C, and the RN largely stuffed.
This led me to think about Dave-B, and was wondering what it would take - a la F-110A Spectre - for the US forces to standardise on Dave-C, with, presumably the USAF jets getting a UAARSI in the back. What would the difference in performance be, and (crucially) would it save any money?
S41
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35C has a slower roll rate and other performance compromises that make it a noticeably worse air-air fighter than F-35A.
With many NATO nations relying on F-35A to be their sole fighter, that is a very important issue.
F-35C is significantly more expensive than F-35A... and no amount of production-number-shifting can cure that.
This is because of the differing materials and so on used in the carrier version.
With many NATO nations relying on F-35A to be their sole fighter, that is a very important issue.
F-35C is significantly more expensive than F-35A... and no amount of production-number-shifting can cure that.
This is because of the differing materials and so on used in the carrier version.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If sequestration bites and the F-35B is cut, I would expect the Navy to take the opportunity to ditch the F-35C at the same time and standardise on the FA-18E/F/G until the X-47 and other lojng range UAVs can fill the attack role.
With China being the threat and with the range of shore based defenses the F-35C looks increasingly inadequate for the role.
That would leave the F-35A for the USAF and other partners - and the RN to ponder........
With China being the threat and with the range of shore based defenses the F-35C looks increasingly inadequate for the role.
That would leave the F-35A for the USAF and other partners - and the RN to ponder........
If the F35B dies then the RN will not get to ponder very long. Ministers will have a stark choice:
N
Spend a load of extra unbudgeted money on CTOL conversion and the associated enablers or,
Complete and sell both carriers.
Add in some inter-service politics (if only because the F35C/F18 bring much greater costs for the RAF to develop and maintain a naval air capability) and Treasury pressure to delete the carriers from the Defence Budget and I know which option I would bet on.Complete and sell both carriers.
N