Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!

BTW, am I being hypercritical, or does it look like either (a) there was a lot of turbulence or (b) the FCS computers had one too many last night? Seems to be wandering in pitch a bit, but I'll leave that discussion for the pilots.

I understand Sweetman has this one for his screen saver
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa..._GR159_001.jpg

For LO: Probably 'bumpy' at this speed/altitude on a summer day... Also the photographer chase aircraft is never going to be perfectly synchronised in formation.

F-35 completes first airborne weapons separation 08 August 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5091

"...BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, released an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet...."

Nothing new to see here-all been done before....
 

http://images.ezrich.multiply.com/im...ChzDmMg&nmid=0

:cool:

:D

One of the smartest posts I've seen in these forums for a long, LONG time!

Glad,

Yes but all unguided I suspect once LGB would be more effective than all of those.

Yep, in hindsight I guess a low level ingress followed by a 6.5g pullup, an inverted release at 3000ft, and a 5g 120 degree pullaway would have been much more appropriate for the VERY FIRST weapons clearance drop from the aircraft... :hmm:

Interesting that it had an AMRAAM shape inboard and two AIM-9Xs outboard for this first drop too...

Meh, I meant the two engines and a tailhook that works...whoosh....

Hypercritical? I would have thought 'childish' was a more appropriate term...

"So a country that doesn't buy F-35 (or F-22 I suppose) might not even make the ATO. "

Orca, why is this a necessarily a bad thing?

Speciifically what do GB lose from not taking part in one of the US's little foreign policy adventures?

Would having the funds to truly be able to defend and protect our own interests and borders not be a preferable situation than being able to say we can play with the big boys (when they need a political cloak) yet can only field a military that is essentially a very small component part of the US forces and cannot defend Britain in a meaningful way at all.
If that is what you are advocating GB should simply apply to be the 50whatever it is state or dis-arm!

One flight test event happens on schedule (well, at least the schedule promulgated six months ago) and the fans go wild.

Orca - There are still not going to be a whole lot of LO platforms in 2020, depending on when JSF makes IOC. If only they can go north of the border we have a problem. Indeed, the whole USAF F-16 upgrade (AESA and much improved EW) is intended to keep those aircraft relevant beyond 2025.

From the editoral of Janes Fighting Ships 2012-2013, edited by Commodore Stephen Saunders:

Perhaps MOD can think outside the box? We need to consider getting some sort of V/STOL jet on the deck of Lusty/QE this decade - something which could be easily achieved. Some suggestions and comments (such as those here from an earlier thread) may be of interest and worth looking at again.

BTW I have been away and missed the last few pages of this thread, but from a quick look at a magazine whilst passing through a newsagent I gather that the USMC is intending to operate the AV8B until 2025-2030, and that of the 72 Harriers the UK sold to the US, 16 are still intact and meant to be flown as such.

Now that the future is STOVL, STOVL aircraft already exist in service today, and we have ships capable of STOVL operations. We just need someone to join the dots, and make it all coherent. It could so easily be a success story, but you need politicians to bite the bullet and accept that things are currently messed up.

:ugh: We haven't had a 'bring back the Harrier' spot for ages.

It is complete nonsense to suggest that we need or will gain anything from a VSTOL a/c to work-up the flight deck of QE before F35B arrives. To scrounge a few Harriers from the USMC would simply allow us to waste (non-existent) money and time re-creating a wheel that our political masters no longer want, especially when it is not clear that when they eventually get it they will even want the new wheel ordered by the previous lot but one or two.

The initial work up of the roof of the Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR was at least as much hindered by the ARK/F4/Bucc mindset as it was helped. The space and support arrangements were different, the FW aircraft and its capabilities were different and the best ways of doing anything were, frequently, different. It all went on evolving for a long time too. The same will occur with QE but even more so because all the aircraft will be different.

If and when QE enters service, then will be time enough to do the integration trials, operational trials and work up that go with any aircraft type being operated from a ship for the first time. As ever these will need to be thought through and done carefully. We should have the advantage that those who remember how we used to do it will be either long gone, or too senior to get involved in the detail. The how to do it sheet will be clean and the 1SL of the day will be able to remind the Minister of the day that we have not done this for many years and don't want to kill people/ lose aircraft/ waste Defence money by rushing the re-learning.

N

Can anyone answer some questions from a layman?

Does anyone know if a purchase of 48 F35B will provide enough aircraft to allow for the use of even one carrier at its maximum surge capacity of 34. I assume some aircraft will be permanently required for an OCU whilst others will be in maintenance at one time or another.

How long will Ocean last and are the new carriers likely to be used to fulfill her role once she has gone? If both carriers go into service are they ever likely to be available at the same time e.g. to use one with FW and the other with rotary or even a mixture on both, or will one always be in refit whilst the other is operational. If the latter is the case and Ocean isn't replaced where will we put our helicopters if we ever need to put 34 F35b on the one operational carrier?

That's right Bengo, thank god all the people who have done something similar before will have gone.


That will make it a lot easier.:rolleyes:

SkyDiver,

Good questions indeed. I wouldn't even attempt an answer here (if I did, my wind-up would be spotted to quickly - it's too obvious). But I'm looking forward to some fun with the answers when thay come. :cool:

Skydiver, asking questions like that is only going to lead to despair and thoughts of what could have been...it's best just not to think about it. Just know this, by the time they are both finished, they are likely to have cost us around £4 billion each - or more - which means they now both seem destined to end up being more expensive than the USS George Bush...which is nuclear...and armoured...and has a far bigger air wing capacity...and has 4 catapults...and is fast...and has a very good defensive suite, but it's all okay because it's secured the long term future of an uncompetitive shipyard in Glasgow :ok:

You'd have to be the Greatest Chancellor of All Time to have managed something so cack-handed... :sad:

Getting the very basics right might be an issue!

When I wrote:

It was a reflection that some argued that we needed to forget STOVL skills as the future was CTOL, concentrate on CTOL, but this might mean losing much whole ship experience. Now we have our people on exchange learning CTOL skills, but a STOVL future! We also have an opportunity to regain the whole ship skills, have an easier transition to F35B, make the task of increasing RN jet jock numbers easier (UK based aircraft to fly), and have an immediate return in terms of UK and coalition capabilities. These issues were of course talked about at length on the post SDSR Harrier thread. I included a link to my initial post there not for some sort of weird ego trip, but because it attempted to highlight some of the issues, including both skills needed for the future a current capabilities, along with possible solutions. There are of course better written posts that also discuss similar issues.

I was trying to be logical - with thoughts of a coherent path, not unlike that suggested by Rear Admiral Parry.

Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.

Bengo I do not understand your logic:

So having that capability now would show the politicians how valuable it is, don't you think? With a Memorandum of Understanding for support it could be cost effective. Considering the trouble the USN was going to in order to help us prepare for a CTOL future, a few AV8Bs and a MOU might not been seen as that much of an additional ask, and would have an immediate return.

The capability (and skills) lost was high on the First Sea Lord's priorities when he spoke to the Defence Committee:

Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.

So every time new aircraft come into service we should get rid of people with experience? Surely when war came in 1982, and Hermes and Invincible were toppers with both jets and helicopters, it was the old hands with experience of larger, busier flight decks and airspace that came into their own? Are basic things like moving jets around the deck at sea not similar regardless of aircraft type? Also, what of those whose involvement is likely to be unaffected by aircraft type, such as the OOW and bridge team or various others?

Surely it would be easier for the first UK F-35B Pilots to transition from Harrier than from Hornet? If there are no UK F35B Pilots for the trials what then? Use USMC ones? They are probably ex AV8B...

If the people who know how to it are long gone, how will trials be done? If what you say is true, then when the future appeared to be CTOL/F35C did we send Pilots and others stateside to learn to fly the Hornet and learn about CTOL operations? After all, the UK will not operate Hornets or a Nimitz class CVN...

As for killing people - I suspect the Officer mentioned here would disagree with you:

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.

Likewise the multiple others who wrote/spoke of the need to ramp up fixed wing flying, with more jets embarked at sea for longer periods, in the run up to CVF. They were saying this long before SDSR.

Nope. I still don't understand your logic. Surely its hard to learn anything if you have forgotten the basics?

WebFoot,

All good stuff, excellent points and well made. But what exactly are you proposing? Is this another 'bring back the Harrier' rant, which won't happen even if you really, really want it, or can you offer something new to suit the current climate?

They know what it did. But they cancelled it with the intention of replacing it with something new. If they can get away with it, they will cut the new thing back as far as they can. They will not do another massive U-turn and lease/buy back the Harriers they already sold to the Americans.

Accept it. They have defined a path for the future of Naval Aviation and the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't get watered down too much. Certainly don't expect an expansion of the plan. You know what I mean. Don't you?

Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer. :cool:

Good luck with the campaign,

Courtney

"which means they now both seem destined to end up being more expensive than the USS George Bush..."

Yet less than half the price of USS Gerald R. Ford which is comparable as its being built today, not in ancient history.

Naval Air: Carrier Costs Climbing Considerably

$15billion ... so far

presumably when they build the "USS Jimmy Carter" it'll cost peanuts?

Last I heard Ocean was to go after QE commissions and just before POW commissions... QE replaces Lusty and POW replaces Ocean.

Whether both will ever sail at the same time? That all depends on future budgets, international situation, British government, etc.



Supposedly, they were designed with use as LPH in mind... whether that was quietly neglected like the "space & weight reserved for catapults & arresting gear" part of the design was is anyone's guess.

Probably the wittiest post on pprune, ever.

Well if 2009 is ancient history to you, then our carriers are already decrepit relics of ancient history. And in any case, how does that change the fact that it's faster, heavily armoured, well defended and can launch the whole spectrum of aircraft with an unlimited range; compared to our un-armoured, poorly defended, slow, range limited, empty flight decks?

Yes the Ford is being built today, but that's where the similarities end, and at £6 billion per ship (ex. development costs) I'd rather buy one of those and use the saved money for a full compliment of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment.

Except they need 5-6000 men to man (Ship's company of 3,200 + air wing 2,480), which the RN doesn't and won't have and can't afford.

So its more or less a waste of time bothering! We are still spending a large ammount of money in the scheme of things to end up with two boats we cannot use against anyone who has a half decent air force or navy!!! It will be a VERY costly nothing we end up with!!!

RR,

Pretty good summary. If you're not going to do it properly, don't do it at all.

What saved money?

Good job we are ending up with two ships at least one of which will be able operate a surged group of 36 or so 5th Generation JSF, then. Incidentally, which "half decent" air force or navy do you have in mind that could beat such a combination?

Well AEW will be limited to a helo, the aircraft cannot be tanked by anything embarked so the carrier is going to have to be close to the enemy due to limited range of the F-35B, you will need considerable surface vessals to protect the carrier itself.

Your point on the surge is a good one, but if carrier is already deployed to somewhere in the Pacific and has only around 12 jets on her as will be routine, will take a while to get the other F-35s to her.

I would say most major players in the world would easily get beyond 12x F-35s and a carrier with minimal surface escorts, if carrying a full air wing she does bring far more to the table. But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour and them not having the sophisticated defence systems required.

They are not going to be as good as an American carrier or the French carrier and I would be surprised if we had enough surface ships in the fleet to act as escorts!!!!

I could still see both being cancelled or sold before entering service, would be a shame at this late stage though as so much has already been spent on them!

If we really wanted a nice cheap/small carrier force might aswell have retained SHAR/GR9 with the Invincible class. But instead we will spend a lot of money to end up with something which is rather limited!!!!

$6 billion = £4 billion

Seeing as QE class are to cost £4 billion each, both classes cost about the same except one is going to be far, far more capable than the other

hence 1 George Bush would be a saving of 4 billion over 2 QEs


And you think a buy of 50 jets will be able to surge 36 to a combat zone?? I will be impressed if we are able to surge half that number. If 50 is the actual proposed buy, then at least 14 are going to be tied down by the OEU/OCU, which leaves probably around 15 - 20 for the front line, which means an even smaller [email protected] I don't forsee a situation where we are ever going to deploy our entire front line F35 force all at once. Neither do I see the marines coming anywhere close to buying the number that they intended, so I wouldn't count on them making up the shortfall.

Up against such a sparsely defended ship, I would say there are a lot of countries that could get a good lick at blowing a few holes in the side of it...seeing as it doesn't have any armour and is going to be relying on rotary AEW. And even if they don't actually pose a threat in reality, their strength on paper may well be too much of a risk to deploy it close enough for the Bs to make any meaningful contribution to the fight.

Seeing as the government are now talking about further cuts to some departments, I wouldn't count on a post-2015 surge in defence spending to help us out a bit.

Bastardeaux - Do you ever read the anti-CVF tripe you write?

For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.

Is that a deployment of your emergency banter?

How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially? How much is it going to cost us to develop a bespoke future AEW capability? How much is it going to cost us to retrofit catapults and arresting gear in the future? How much is it going to cost us to service the B instead of the C? How much is it going to cost us to deploy A330s to support the carrier's combat air ops? How much if we want to increase its air defence capability? Obviously I don't have the answers to these questions but there seems to be an awful lot of hidden costs, which may not make the difference in total outlays as much of a gulf as you think; if those totals only mean 25 billion difference over their lifetimes, I would take the extra 500 million a year.

The main thrust of my argument was more to make a point that we are getting excessively poor value for money here, and the point still stands that the newest American carrier into service will cost about the same to buy, but I know which one I'd rather be on in a war zone.

And the continuous availability question didn't seem that important when we were opting for 1 conventional carrier...the French seem to manage just fine.

And you can add this to the list of own goals.......

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...o-growler.html

1. Who opted for only one carrier? Certainly not the Royal Navy.

2. Are you saying the French haven't experienced problems with carrier availability? You can't have read much about CdeG's operational record.

I'm still trying to work out whether you're trying to be ironic or simply generating nonsense to confuse the issue. Either way, there doesn't seem much point in further discussion.

Ronald Reagan


"But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour "


This phrase alone shows that you are totally, utterly clueless in the realm of naval warfare.

Tourist: Ah, "clueless". That's a possibility I hadn't considered seriously enough w.r.t. Bastardeux. Thank you.

Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. However the point is valid, would the UK carriers be able to defend themselves aswell from an attack by enemy air or naval forces as an American Carrier Battle Group or even the French carrier?

Lets say an attack by around 20 to 30x SU-30s or any other combat aircraft?

The fact we are going for F-35 would indicate a desire to be able to take on sophisticated enemies, but will there be enough jets and will the ship be able to defend itself well enough. If we are only going to be up against primitive threats do we even need F-35?!

I feel strongly an island nation which depends on maritime trade needs a stronger navy more than any other service. BUT are these carriers value for money, are they right for the UK and will they be of real use or are they a costly gimic!!! I have never been convinced by the arguments for F-35B rather than going for conventional take off and landing aircraft either.