A large part of the FAA has always wanted Dave-C. STOVL is a good way of operating when you are size constrained on your ship, but when that goes away, the extra legs that 35C gets you compared to the B variant will also be useful. There is also the obvious synergy with MASC / E2C and an awful lot more scope for alternate a/c if dave goes tits.

The EMALS system is however a major risk - the benefits are obvious - particularly as the RN steam branch is now pretty much limited to a few auxiliary systems on the older ships and the boats. However, USN have been banging on about this for around 12 years now and are still some way away.

It's probably the best way forward as a modern system (the CVF deisgn at present includes space and weight for the old BS6 cats!) but adds risk right when you don't want it in the programme...

Boff,

I think the EMALS system has matured a lot over the last few years. The US CVN-21 class will feature and their electrical capacity ramped up because of it. AFAIK steam cats are now off the menu for the USN. Maybe economies of scale can be achieved with a combined purchase?

Anyway you look at it, Dave-C plus a cat 'n trap carrier is a lot more expensive to buy and to operate. Needs more crew for one thing. Not sure how to square that with the comments above that the CVF team is busy stripping out capability to get down to Gordo's budget. Also does the MASC budget allow E-2's? I thought we heard budget baseline was existing SK7 kit shoehorned into a Merlin. Can't get too many Hawkeye's for that.

Dave Cs are cheaper than Dave Bs. :bored:

The EMALS system may well be progressing and I'm sure it will go on CVN21. What I mean by risk is the developmental nature of the system when we will want to install it. At present the only "risky" systems on CVF are something a bit clever on the weapons handling side and the power generation & distribution system. Add a developmental (ie not off the shelf cat) and it adds significant perceived risk to the project.

As far is MASC is concerned, by the time A_W have knocked up another 10-12 airframes, integrated SW2000 into them, the budget will be long gone anyway. Sooner or later, we're going to have to bite the bullet on MASC- as posted before, we're in danger of becoming enthralled with what ASaC7 can do now, rather than what MASC actually requires.

Incorrect, right now Dave-C is the most expensive Dave of all. But only by a relatively small margin. Maybe throwing the weight of the UK behind that variant would help bring the price down. A bigger problem might be it's availability - currently scheduled to be the last to enter service.

Guys,
Just Been on the old www and found this out from various sources. Which one do you think (Since money would be a constraint as always!) would be best for the UK - If we go Cat and Trap then i'm not sure that Dave C is the best option.
Dave (F35B) Unit cost – $54 million (FY 2005 but will more likely cost nearer $77 million)*
Advantages – Compatible with smaller decked carriers, should CVF fold then could operate from an LHD/SCS. Provides work for BAE, therefore politically favorable. Stealthy.
Disadvantages – Were in up to our necks in it with the Yanks who are being v-uncooperative wrt technology transfer. Chances are we’ll end up with a low tech variant of what should be a good A/C. Design still immature. Still high risk.
Dave (F35C) Unit cost - $54 million (FY 2005 but will more likely cost nearer $77 million)*
Advantages & Disadvantages – as above but not for small decks
Super Hornet (F/A 18F) - Unit cost $59 million (at 2003 Prices)
Advantages - Cheap, would offset costs of Cat and Trap by the greatest margin. Disadvantages – Political, no work foe BAE. Not Stealthy, (But do we need stealth?)
Rafale - Unit cost – Between $66.5 million and $145 Million with complete array of sensors and weapons.
Advantages – If the UK went for its own weapons fit it could provide work for BAE but would the associated risk be worth taking? Commonality of design with PA2 to a greater degree.
Disadvantages – Possibly quite expensive and we’d be dealing with the French!
* Taken with thanks from Richard Beedal's most excellent website

Al you've sketched out the aircraft options perfectly - but you have fallen for the idea that a big CVF is costly and therefore the likely cause of it failing - not so!

A purchase of 150 aircraft at (say $60m a pop) adds up to $9Bn, the ships are budgetted at around 1/3 of that (and frankly shouldn't cost anything like that given the relative simplicity of the ship). To compromise the capability by locking into a ship that can only operate one candidate a/c is not tenable - and is what we have found with the CVS. That is why the ship has been designed to accept cat n trap if required, but it can only do so if it is big.

However, the principal reason it's big is to provide sufficient deck space for the strike packages and sortie rate (therefore parking) required. If you're not going to deliver the sort of strike capability that is being talked about then there will be NO reversionary measure (LHD/SCS etc). As far as MoDs IAB is required, you either meet the requirement or can the project, end of dit!

I see that Boeing is already talking about offering an updated F-15 as a gap filler in the event of a further delay to the JSF programme. Not much use to the CVF prgramme though.

No. But if we could get Northrop Grumman to offer Tomcat 21 / Super Tomcat we'd probably get a better solution all round.....

You (british morons) have a solution called RAFALE.

You can always buy the LCA ( From India)

:ok:

You are quite correct, although the Rafale is a distant third behind the Super Hornet.

Are you sure,I guess not :ugh:

If you, brits, do not want it,no problem we will sell it to the CoAN ( CANA), the fleet air arm of the argentinian navy. :D

Better sell them an aircraft carrier at the same time because they haven't got one.

We can do that as you wish :ok:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/262...yo2x250sc7.jpg


http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8512/05im2.jpg



25 de Mayo

I remember having a chat with a chap who served in the silent service in the Falklands and has now achieved higher rank. He described the concussive effect of a Mk8** with 700lb of Torpex as something that could shake your fillings loose. I suspect poor old 25 de Mayo might take one, perhaps briefly, but certainly not two. Belgrano lasted as long as she did because she was well sub compartmented even though that was compromised by poor DC. Poor old (ex) HMS Leviathan would have turned over in minutes even from a single MK8 taking most of her people with her. Not a good example to choose.

Your point was...?

Ummm, is this relevant?

quote:

Out of service since June 1986, plans to refit 25° de Mayo, originally issued in October 1990, called for completion of a refit by 1992 at the latest. However, the aircraft carrier remained laid up at the navy yard at Puerto Belgrano, minus her propulsion plant. In late 1994, Ficantieri of Italy examined proposals to completely overhaul and modernize the carrier, though a lack of adequate funding precluded this. In January of 1999 she was towed away for scrapping in India, and beached at Alang, India by March 2000.

source: www.global security.org

My point is that argentinians will have an aircraft carrier before the brits.:{

I belive GB won t build an aircrafts carrier.

Hmmmmm. Suspect I'm p1ssing in the wind here, but....

Off the top of my head, there are three non-US carriers still in existence that are large enough to operate cat n' trap aircraft. Has to be cat n trap as the OEM of STOVL aircraft just happens to be British and may be a tad unwilling to issue an export license or provide in-service support. All these ships are French - one is Charles de Gaulle, one is ex-Foch, now Sao Paolo and the other is the remnants of ex Clemenceau recently prevented from being scrapped on the beaches of Alang. Unless they get hold of one of these, they'd probably have to build their own as the US ones require more manpower than is currently in the entire Argentine navy.

Only other alternative is to persuade the Indians to sell the Gorshkov when the STOBAR conversion is finished which is a tad unlikely given the lengths they went to to get the ship in the first place. As the Argy economy is currently flatlining, I take it you're not suggesting they could / would build their own, particularly given the almost total absence of a shipbuilding industry in their country? UK may not get CVF, but it's virtually certain Argentina won't get a carrier