Going back a page to Double Zero's points:

There's a lot of ill-informed comment about the thermal effects of an F-35B doing a VL. I've stood quite happily about 50ft away from BF-1 landing on the AM-2 pad at Pax. It's windy, but to my uncalibrated body it's not a whole lot different from legacy. There are some concerns about the thermals - in no small part because the jet is so easy to land that you're likely to get a lot of very accurate repeat thermal loadings on the same point. It's not the end of the world and there are a number of mitigations, but we're still in early DT.

I've no idea where this red herring about concrete pads comes from. The spec has always called out for requirement to operate from AM-2 surfaces in the austere environment. There is nothing to suggest that it can't meet that spec, as that's exactly what the airplane is doing right now. If an AM-2 surface isn't available then it's back to Creeping and Rolling VLs, just like legacy. As for the RAM coatings issue, well the rocket scientists on PPRuNe aren't the first ones to think of that either I'm afraid.

The -B vs -C debate will rage until we finally buy some -Cs. Hopefully when that happens all the armchair Air Vice Marshals out there will pipe down, or will we then realize that it's not all about the range number. The first thing we, the UK, will do is put PWIV in the weapon bay as we don't have any 2000lb JDAMs in our inventory. So that'll be a zero increase in capability. Then one day we'll get some SDB-type weapons and be able to fit 4 of them in the -C model's bay (just the same as in the -B). And then we'll all be happy when we play Top Trumps cause the range number is bigger than the -B's. Someone might then notice that if you make a bigger airplane, and make it heavier, and then put the same engine in it, it might have some performance differences other than bigger range. I don't know, perhaps bleed rates in the turn and acceleration might be different? I can't remember the last time I wished my airplane was bigger and heavier, or yearned for a lower thrust-weight ratio. But I'm old-fashioned.

Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

There is already a HMS Victory, the worlds oldest Commissioned warship. She is in Portsmouth and was Nelson's Flagship at Trafalgar.

Send her Victorious, Ark Royal or Glorious, . . .

SSSETOWTF,

Yes, the C is just over 2.5K heavier than the B at zero fuel weight, and a thrust/weight ratio at 50% fuel of 0.91 compared to 1.04. On the other hand it has a wing area of 668sq ft compared to 460sq ft, so I'll take advice on how they'd compare in a fight.

As to being bigger/heavier, it depends. I always preferred the Lightning to the F4 when controlling DACT, but I'd have preferred to go to war with 4+4 missiles than 2.

The C carries 50% more internal fuel (19.5K compared to 13.3K) and 10K more MAUW, and operating from a carrier without AAR support that's significant.

As the saying goes, 3 of the most useless things in the world to a pilot are runway behind, sky above you and fuel on the ground.

There might be the very, very odd time you get sucked into a dogfight where the performance edge might matter. I'd suggest there'll be many, many more times you'd prefer the extra fuel in the tank.

Oldnotbold, I am quite aware of that ship's notional status - tradition is one thing, that is quite another.

SSSETOWTF,

Thanks for the info', I thought the scares sounded a bit fishy for such a project.

You may be a highly esteemed ex-colleague of mine, ( beginning with 'G' ) if not you're not far away from him !

DZ

HMS Victory does not have a 'notional' status, she is a Commissioned Warship in the Royal Navy.

.... right up until someone suggests scrapping her as a cost savings measure (no sacred cows etc) and then suddenly she becomes a museum piece run and funded by charity;).

Perhaps we should get more of the Armed Forces registered as a charity :ok:

How about the VC10 for starters.

"The Guardian has reported both carriers have been given the go-ahead after todays meeting.

The FT also says Cameron has backed both carriers and I quote 'His preferred option is to redesign the second vessel, delay production, and buy the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, rather than the planned jump-jet variant.

Janes says Converteam readies EMCAT for new UK Royal Navy aircraft carrier launch trials

Converteam UK is working to complete a scaled-up design of its electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT) system that will be capable of launching the F-35C variant of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from the UK Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The company specialises in power conversion systems and has been contracted by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to develop a 100 m-long EMCAT design that could fit into a 1.5 m-deep well under the flight deck of a 65,000-ton carrier "

Jane's International Defence Review
Navy to get aircraft carriers despite defence cuts | UK news | The Guardian

Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

Well at least the RN Fleet Air Arm must be fairly happy right now.

The RN aren't out of the woods yet.

Unless Queen Elizabeth is retrofitted with EMALS (which feels like "will we even get the carriers" all over again) they will only have fixed wing carrier capability when Prince of Wales is not in refit. :hmm:

All depends exactly what 1SL has pawned / sacrificed / sold out in order to save the carriers. A bit like a predecessor of his did with the SHAR ....

Given the speculation in the past (carriers to be sold to the Indians, French sharing, F-18s, JSF gone, marinated Typhoons, mothballs), I won't believe it until I see it officially announced next week, although it does sound a bit more realistic than some of the guff that has been printed in the last few years.
As this article is only available on subscription, is this a confirmed change to the EMCAT programme that was already in place for a scaled-up system, or just a bit of Miss Marple-type deduction using an old recycled story from the summer in an attempt to prove that the carriers will indeed operate the F-35C?

Liam Fox in The Times today:

........Compounding this problem was the decision to order aircraft carriers that are not fully interoperable with our two closest allies - The United States and France [ :hmm: ]. Neither the French Rafale nor the US Navy's planned version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) could take or land from our carriers.

The design of the carriers also meant the variant of the JSF as planned is the most expensive. Now we find ourselves in an impossible position. Cancelling the carriers would cost almost as much as building them and would mean the end of the British shipbuilding industry. But getting the carriers right would take longer and is likely to cost more.......

I read that just a moment ago. Doesn't make it any clearer does it Orac? On the one hand, he is blasting the lack of capability to cross deck aircraft by sticking to the Dave B, but on the other says it will cost more money and delay to equip them to do so. Nothing in Fox's piece is clear about what will be announced next week.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada may have an issue with that! :yuk:

Is that a verbatim quote of Fox, or is it journalistic interpretation? Strikes me as an unusual choice of words not least because, as Mick points out, it suggests that none of the ways forward is acceptable.

I heard a report today on BBC Radio 4 stating that Robert Gates has put a hold on future US carriers due to concerns over their survivability in the face of the new generation of Chinese and Russian hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

Surely the smart thing to do with the QE's is make them UCAV-carriers?

I would expect value for money to be much higher plus they would pack a larger offensive punch per ship.