If only we had a carrier with ‘Cats and Traps’!
Thread Starter
If only we had a carrier with ‘Cats and Traps’!
i see the new General Atomics MQ-25 is shaping up. Unmanned AAR for probe and drogue plus a maritime ISTAR capability. But not for the UK with no ‘cats’ and no ‘traps’!
I wonder if whoever signed off on the carriers and the B models ever considered at the time if it might not be the best of ideas?
I wonder if they have changed their mind since?
If I could be bothered I'd post a photo of an E-2 - I see they have also been shaping up nicely for a while too!
I wonder if they have changed their mind since?
If I could be bothered I'd post a photo of an E-2 - I see they have also been shaping up nicely for a while too!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a listen to The Fighter Pilot Podcast for some fascinating explanations of carrier ops, including the use of a tanker for launch and recovery in blue water ops. For those of us who just 'got in the way' in an MPA, it gives a whole new level of respect!!! Night landing when low on fuel in the middle of the Pacific on a pitching deck? I'll take the honkers stew and fly back home option thanks!
I wonder if whoever signed off on the carriers and the B models ever considered at the time if it might not be the best of ideas?
It was looked at in 2010 and the reality was the cost and risk was so high that the RN would only keep one of the two CVF class in service. The other would have been scrapped as soon as it was completed.
The risks were considerable and would have massively delayed return to fixed wing carrier ops for very limited benefits (the CTOL carrier offering fairly limited operational advantages for the likely air wing that the UK would concievably use). The value of the design is not that great, and I'd rather see the money spent on more ships, than buying a fanboy platform of limited value.
The risks were considerable and would have massively delayed return to fixed wing carrier ops for very limited benefits (the CTOL carrier offering fairly limited operational advantages for the likely air wing that the UK would concievably use). The value of the design is not that great, and I'd rather see the money spent on more ships, than buying a fanboy platform of limited value.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it all depends on affordability. If you decide you can't afford dedicated aerial tankers (even unmanned ones) or dedicated AWACS aircraft, or dedicated jammer aircraft, or fixed wing COD, then the choice between cat & trap vs STOVL carriers is pretty easy. Plus, if you haven't had cat and trap carriers in several years, how hard will it be to relearn how to do that? It's as much art as science. So yet more pressure to go STOVL
On the other hand, once you're committed to STOVL carriers, you're committed to no tankers, no AWACS, no jammers, and no COD for the life of the carriers, or about half a century. And let's say a five decades goes by with no cat & trap carriers. How difficult and expensive will it be to recreate everything that cat & trap requires when you haven't done if for several decades? Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have been able to pull it off. At least not yet.
On the other hand, once you're committed to STOVL carriers, you're committed to no tankers, no AWACS, no jammers, and no COD for the life of the carriers, or about half a century. And let's say a five decades goes by with no cat & trap carriers. How difficult and expensive will it be to recreate everything that cat & trap requires when you haven't done if for several decades? Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have been able to pull it off. At least not yet.
Last edited by KenV; 5th Jun 2018 at 14:23.
I guess it all depends on affordability. If you decide you can't afford dedicated aerial tankers (even unmanned ones) or dedicated AWACS aircraft, or dedicated jammer aircraft, then the choice between cat & trap vs STOVL carriers is pretty easy. On the other hand, once you're committed to STOVL carriers, you're committed to no tankers, no AWACS, and no jammers for the life of the carriers, or about half a century.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Ken. The price jump from STOVL to full Cat and Trap is eye watering- and it's not just the "cats and trap"- a new E-2D makes the F-35 look cheap. When you figure in an air wing of several types, increased training (carrier quals) and the infrastructure, it becomes unaffordable pretty quickly.
Also the extra manpower needed for catapults and arrestor gear, the lack of steam, the desire to have a common aircraft for RN and RAF, and for it to be possible for the carrier to be rapidly reinforced, and training issues (CTOL has a huge training burden).
I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't the new carriers designed to be able to accomodate the v-22 Osprey, for which a tanker variant is being developed for the Marines?! Although it's not been financed, that must be a possibility, along with some sort of AWACS option
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
Ummm, not quite. The MQ-25 has a large fuel offload requirement at a significant range from the carrier. This is to give the fighters making the attack considerably greater range, enabling the carrier to be further out at sea and more difficult to attack. And with the automated landings afforded by F-35 and Magic Carpet on Super Hornet, bolters will become far far fewer, significantly reducing tanker requirements around the carrier. We are entering a whole new world.
Yes, the new carriers could take aboard V-22's and Tanker, AWACS, armed and COD versions (or capability added to troop versions) of the V-22 have been talked about for years, and a small number of V-22's in UK service would undoubtedly bring a welcome capability, but would likely be cost prohibitive. Tanking capability and COD versions are on their way to US service.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWACS for the carrier is already planned, it's called Merlin Mk2 ASAC (Crowsnest to you and me), COD can be done either by Merlin Mk4 or CH47...
personally I think there is more chance of me winning the lottery (which I don't play) than the RN having 5 or 6 V22 to support 1 carrier (after all only 1 will ever be at sea at a time)
DM
personally I think there is more chance of me winning the lottery (which I don't play) than the RN having 5 or 6 V22 to support 1 carrier (after all only 1 will ever be at sea at a time)
DM
Thread Starter
Also the extra manpower needed for catapults and arrestor gear, the lack of steam, the desire to have a common aircraft for RN and RAF, and for it to be possible for the carrier to be rapidly reinforced, and training issues (CTOL has a huge training burden).
I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
I understand that the US Navy intends to use the MQ-25 in lieu of Hornets with buddy tanks, primarily offering a suck of gas to the aircraft that struggles to get down onto the carrier deck and has to go around again.
Aircraft landing vertically do not have this need.
As for VTOL not needing a tanker to hold off until the ship is in suitable viz, I can recall the SHars having to divert to mainland Italy during DENY FLIGHT as their through-deck cruiser was socked out in sea fog. Luckily they were steaming close to friendly airbases.
Nope the lack of cats and traps was a significant issue that has cut down even further the choice of aircraft we can embark - it’s really F35B and helicopters or nothing. Pretty expensive for effectively a helicopter carrier!
Still it’s spilt milk now...
Steam? How very 19th Century! Surely EMALS is the way ahead and it also reduces the ships compliment as it needs less to service the antiquated steam hydraulics? Also, the unit cost of buying C models would go well below the B if we were buying some Cs - thus offsetting the £2bn retrofit? Plus the C has a better payload and range.
As for VTOL not needing a tanker to hold off until the ship is in suitable viz, I can recall the SHars having to divert to mainland Italy during DENY FLIGHT as their through-deck cruiser was socked out in sea fog. Luckily they were steaming close to friendly airbases.
Nope the lack of cats and traps was a significant issue that has cut down even further the choice of aircraft we can embark - it’s really F35B and helicopters or nothing. Pretty expensive for effectively a helicopter carrier!
Still it’s spilt milk now...