Or could cheaper planes be used?
Can only vtol planes be deployed?
Just curious really.
[url= 
]There are options...[/url]
Depends if the planes can swim at the moment....
Pretty much yes, apart from helicopters obviously. Fantastically short sighted move not to build them with catapults and wire. Although that would have meant higher build cost, aircraft would have been cheaper and better operationally. American and French planes could use the same deck, and vice versa.
Fantastically short sighted move not to build them with catapults and wire.
That presumes that the point of the aircraft carriers was to be an effective asset for the military, rather than securing jobs for Gordon Brown's constituents during the building process.
They have already done their job.
Normal carrier aircraft would need catapults and traps. Steam catapults where ruled out as propulsion is via gas turbine so a separate steam generator would be needed. Electric catapults are just starting to be used on US Gerald R Ford. They were considered but decision was eventually not to go for them for programme risk/keep Roles Royce happy as they build the F35 lift system.
Pretty much yes, apart from helicopters obviously. Fantastically short sighted move not to build them with catapults and wire. Although that would have meant higher build cost, aircraft would have been cheaper and better operationally. American and French planes could use the same deck, and vice versa.
Although stolv carriers can achieve higher sortie rates and can chuck more aircraft into the air at short notice in the event of a scramble. The F18s dont have enough extra range to keep the carriers out of range of new chinese missiles, so we'd have to develop a new carrier based long range bomber to make the catobar range argument worth it.
To be honest, I think a lot of people have forgotten how useful it is from a survivability point of view.... in being able to disperse your jets onto makeshift rough airfields/roads.... the B model was a good choice.
Perhaps we can buy some harriers back from the US marines
It's ok chaps, problem solved.
They won't know what hit them...
[img] 
[/img]
in being able to disperse your jets onto makeshift rough airfields/roads.... the B model was a good choice.
The F35B doesn’t have a rough airfield capability, sorry.
Rachel
Surely these days stating an intent of being able to launch planes is sufficent.
“The fault on the £3.1bn carrier was first identified during sea trials“
I usually stick up for the Beeb, but this is a non-story
The decision to make QEC 'all electric' was taken in 2002, there was a study into electromagnetic launch but rejected because of technical risk / costs. The notion that you could retro-fit steam catapults to a half-built ship in 2010 was pure fantasy. The technical problems will get fixed, whether there will be any operational air defence destroyers available is another question.
Thar article doesn't mention the deck paint either. The deck paint that couldn't stand the blistering heat of a Scottish summer.
IIRC the C models had greater lift capacity and range too.
“The fault on the £3.1bn carrier was first identified during sea trials“I usually stick up for the Beeb, but this is a non-story
They'll be on here looking for SOGA info once ACA deny warranty coverage.
scotroutes - MemberThar article doesn't mention the deck paint either.
Not exactly an exciting story. They'll sort out some other paint, and paint it
Define rough airfield Rachel, if you mean soft WW2 turf strips - then no. Roads and compacted dirt are supposedly doable though.
There's various articles linked by google discussing US Marines buying the aircraft for just that purpose.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=637
http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-marines-f-35-japan-hot-loading-adgr-2017-4
If we ever get into a proper shooting match at sea again, it will probably be alongside the Americans in the Philippine Sea/South Chine Sea - where being able to cart 100 VTOL fighters in amongst the thousands of small islands that make up that archipelago - will be very very useful.
The story on the leaky prop shafts is a complete non story. Firstly that is the point of sea trials, to find issues and snags with the ship, so no surprise there. They know about it and will fix it and that will be that. I'll bet there are thousands of snags and issues being uncovered during the trials.
On the F35, the reality is that it is the most modern and capable fighter bomber flying, so why would we want a different aircraft? It is next level and next generation stuff. People love to say it's not as good a dog fighter as some current stuff....but it's not a dogfighter, though will stand it's own ground against any other fighter out there - the F18 is not as good a dog fighter as an F15/F16/Eurofighter/F22 and the F35 is another level above the F18. The strength in the aircraft is it's systems and it's electronic warfare capability.
Catapult systems are great for getting great numbers of aircraft in the air quickly.....but that is a redundant capability in today's world. They're unreliable, dangerous, maintenance hungry, create a lot of stress on the aircraft, mean the aircraft carrier itself has to be a lot bigger. VSTOL has proved itself as a viable system in the modern world. We're not re-fighting WW2 anytime soon and wanting to get whole squadrons of aircraft in the air in a matter of minutes. We're deploying a small handful of aircraft at any given time for surgical strike missions, mostly stand off, that are integrated with other arms of the forces and other nations forces. The F35 is bang on the right aircraft for the job, it's been specifically designed and optimised for the modern electronic battlefield...no other aircraft is able to do the job of the F35. Period.
Surely these days stating an intent of being able to launch planes is sufficient.
This is the most sensible thing I've heard on any of the discussions on this topic. Not many countries in the world have aircraft carriers and parking one a few hundred miles off the coast of a potentially hostile nation, bringing as much or more air power than most nations have full stop, sends a powerful signal and usually prevents any spat becoming hot.
To be honest, I think a lot of people have forgotten how useful it is from a survivability point of view.... in being able to disperse your jets onto makeshift rough airfields/roads.... the B model was a good choice.
Why on earth would you want to disperse your aircraft from an aircraft carrier and onto land or even other aircraft carriers? There is no support, no spare parts, no mechanics that can fix those aircraft (and they need fixing...a lot...like all the time), the aircraft carriers capabilities will be severely reduced. The aircraft on an aircraft carrier are part of a combat system. They're just one piece in a much larger and broader puzzle.
Why on earth would you want to disperse your aircraft from an aircraft carrier and onto land or even other aircraft carriers? There is no support, no spare parts, no mechanics that can fix those aircraft (and they need fixing...a lot...like all the time), the aircraft carriers capabilities will be severely reduced. The aircraft on an aircraft carrier are part of a combat system. They're just one piece in a much larger and broader puzzle.
Ask the US Marines that - and ask why they did it repeatedly in the Pacific war and why they still plan on doing it.
Carriers aren't offensive 1st day weapons anymore, they simply don't have the survivability. Better to hide your 150 million pound jets in amongst hills, forests and population centres - and building survivability in with missile defence. Instead of gathering all your best pilots and billions of pounds worth of planes - on a giant floating bomb that everyone will be able to geolocate in 10 years when there are thousands of unmanned subs trawling the seas with sensor gear.
Catapult systems are great for getting great numbers of aircraft in the air quickly.....but that is a redundant capability in today's world.
I gathered STOLV was actually better than this, as you can theoretically do rolling launches like this....
The trouble with rough airfields is dirt. Not ploughed fields or anything but even compacted ground is an issue for the F35B. There’s an even greater risk of investing dirt into the engine than there was in the Harrier.
And the lift system creates a huge stress on your carefully prepared surface. It’s on of the reasons the runway at RAF Marham is currently having the be upgraded for the F35B.
This is before we get onto the need to chill the fuel it it’s a bit warm outside.
Rachel
And the lift system creates a huge stress on your carefully prepared surface. It’s on of the reasons the runway at RAF Marham is currently having the be upgraded for the F35B.
They only care about crap like this during peacetime, during a proper war they'd be burning through engines/pushing the limits of the maintenance schedules and using combat engineers to constantly repair the airfields. The US Marines have a long and proud history of doing that.
They won't bother with it's (perhaps mediocre) ability to do operate from makeshift airstrips unless they actually have a pressing need to do so.
IMO, still nice to have though as an option.
I'm no military expert but surely something that big would be easy to hit with a cruise missle or something..
Well, the issue in the past has been actually identifying where the carrier is and then targeting/vectoring ICBMs/Cruise missiles onto the carrier - as they are constantly moving and given the lag time between identifying the carrier, shooting and the missile arriving - the carrier could be 10s if not hundreds of miles in either direction.
I do suspect that carriers are now the 21st centuries equivalent of the Yamato battleship - cool as **** but their days are numbered.
Better to hide your 150 million pound jets in amongst hills, forests and population centres - and building survivability in with missile defence. Instead of gathering all your best pilots and billions of pounds worth of planes - on a giant floating bomb that everyone will be able to geolocate in 10 years when there are thousands of unmanned subs trawling the seas with sensor gear.
aannnnddd now you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't just park them all over the place, they all need supported and when you also bring in missile defence systems they become even more obvious.
They only care about crap like this during peacetime, during a proper war they'd be burning through engines/pushing the limits of the maintenance schedules and using combat engineers to constantly repair the airfields.
Nope, they care about it when in theatre too. Changing parts = time the equipment isn't availble for use
Depends if the planes can swim at the moment....
Wow, 200l a day! Might take, what 100 years to sink?
All ships leak a bit, that's why they have bilge pumps....
Complete non story.
Wow, 200l a day!
An hour. But yeah, don’t think it’s compromising the seaworthiness.
On the F35, the reality is that it is the most modern and capable fighter bomber flying, so why would we want a different aircraft?
Hang on, hang on, it'll come to me...
your 150 million pound jets
Ah, there it is.
aannnnddd now you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't just park them all over the place, they all need supported and when you also bring in missile defence systems they become even more obvious.
The US Marines operate them in deployments of 6 aircraft per LHA - I reckon they have planned for and are easily capable of supporting similar sized detachments on makeshift airstrips.
Missile defence is a strategic mission that covers a massively wide area, you wouldn't need those systems placed anywhere near your actual aircraft in the field.
The point of dispersal isn't just to hide, it's to force opponents to have to attack multiple targets instead of one - or make the choice of attacking certain targets and not others. Your forces can't then be completely degraded with one decisively well placed torpedo or anti ship missile.
The story on the leaky prop shafts is a complete non story. Firstly that is the point of sea trials, to find issues and snags with the ship, so no surprise there. They know about it and will fix it and that will be that. I'll bet there are thousands of snags and issues being uncovered during the trials.
+1. Total non-story.
All of the T45s leaked at various points during commissioning/sea trails.
In fact, I remember getting a call from one of our Engineers who'd been evacuated from one of them in Portsmouth because one of the machinery spaces had 4 feet of water in it.
[b]Multiple leaks on new warship[/b]Startling revelations emerged today that there are over a hundred leaks on the new naval aircraft carrier.
In an exclusive interview with our journalist an unnamed member of the galley team said they had seen leaks everywhere at lunchtime and salt water was frothing and bubbling in some locations while in others there were small but controlled fires raging.
British journalism at its finest 😆
The story on the leaky prop shafts is a complete non story. Firstly that is the point of sea trials, to find issues and snags with the ship, so no surprise there. They know about it and will fix it and that will be that. I'll bet there are thousands of snags and issues being uncovered during the trials.
A stern gland is pretty fundamental. If you can't get that right during the build then what else has been installed/built incorrectly?
Thousands of ships come out of yards without leaky stern glands. so why is this build so shonky that they couldn't even get that right?
A stern gland is a stern gland, it's not some super high tech weapon system.
Catapult systems are great for getting great numbers of aircraft in the air quickly.....but that is a redundant capability in today's world. They're unreliable, dangerous, maintenance hungry, create a lot of stress on the aircraft
One of the big advantages of the electric catapults is reduced stress as they can be controlled more finely than steam catapults - steam's a bit on/off.
+1. Total non-story.All of the T45s leaked at various points during commissioning/sea trails.
In fact, I remember getting a call from one of our Engineers who'd been evacuated from one of them in Portsmouth because one of the machinery spaces had 4 feet of water in it
Well everyone knows how reliable and successful the T45's have been. 🙄
200 litres an hour
That's 3 litres per minute!
Even the most lethargic jolly jack tar with a bucket could probably manage to keep the tub afloat indefinitely.
The F35 is bang on the right aircraft for the job, it's been specifically designed and optimised for the modern electronic battlefield
What would happen if, at the outset of hostilities, someone with the capability detonated a nuclear bomb in the upper atmosphere? Would it have any effect on all our electronic gizmos and our ability to communicate with our electronic gizmos?
There was an amusing post on the wests obsession with bid deck carriers and the Marines opposite obsession with forward air bases over at aviationweek - the ending in particular, which highlights how the whole STOlV vs CATs argument is entirely missing the point anyway.
There are two 'traditional' reasons for the Marine obsession with STOVL forward operations.1. Abandonment.
In WWII, at Guadalcanal. The big, bold, brave, bada$$ Marines were left at their amphib anchorage because the carrier was more valuable than they were. It was the correct decision because it was the sole carrier we had in the Pacific at the time. That decision, repeated today with a 1.5 billion dollar LHD/LHA, would be exactly the same, whether the Marines had their PSP pad up and working or not. You cannot trade hulls jammed up against predictable landward targeting localization, for over the beach support.2. Responsiveness.
Supposedly, a jet which is 15 minutes away at a forward operating location (which means it's also within range for a 150 dollar mortar shell) is more capable than a jet which if RIGHT OVERHEAD on an in-air stack of holding CAS. This would be funny if it were not so stupid because the truth is that a Navy Big Deck, fully war-kitted with 80 jets _like the Nimitz class was designed for_ (i.e. two Marine and two Navy Hornet squadrons) can sustain a CAS orbit overhead whereas the 6 F-35s which a Marine Gator Freighter can put out: 'whenever helos are not on the spots' cannot even generate and escort force for STOM ops and a FORCAP defense for the ARG, simultaneously. Derp.If the traditional Marine SPOD capture mission set _requires_ a CSG to provide effective air support for troops in contact and a CSG is itself increasingly non-survivable in the face of Klub and DF-21 and similar ICD defensive systems, then it's time to look at the overall _cost_ of airpower and do some serious biddable trading.
If I can buy a Jumper Missile battery (Israeli make-it-work followon to Netfires) for 1 million dollars per missile from a 16 missile pack and the F-35B costs 135 missile dollars then I can buy 8.4 batteries or roughly 134 shots for 'guided artillery purposes' at 1/5th the weight of an M109 but with twice the potential range (65km).
IS THAT ENOUGH to make the F-35 a loseable asset?
If not, how about a mix of Jumpers and the XM395 PGMM, 120mm mortar munitions at 50,000 dollars a round? If I only buy 70 jumpers, I can buy 1,300 INS/GPS and SALH precision mortar shots with the remainder. Range is only 10-12km but boy can I slapshot a lot of nets with those rounds. And that is just for ONE F-35B.
From the other side, if the F-35B is also an interdictor (and it isn't because of it's incredibly short radius), how many 3 million dollar Hoplite minicruise weapons can I buy to hit targets 400km downrange at Mach 3? Why I can buy 45 missiles. And because those missiles reach the target approximately 3.52 times as fast (and don't have to come home to reload) their ops tempo is a correspondingly SEVEN TIMES greater in terms of hitting targets quickly and efficiently rather than 'as fast as 25 jets on a harrier carrier will allow'. Hoplite could be carried by any ship, down to the size of an LCS (or a sub) and thus could be positioned to provide support to specops STOM raiding when Carriers could not be risked.
We are not looking at the spectrum of responses available. We are stuck in WWII mode of massed attack. And trying to justify the F-35B based on it's _takeoff and landing modes_ (.5 percent of it's total mission evolution, utterly non-combatant) is thus incredibly stupid because a weapons system is only as good as the EFFECTS it delivers to the pointy end of the fight.
And a missile does better vertical takeoff than the F-35B does a vertical landing.
CONCLUSION:
Solid State Lasers will come to rule the roost of modern airwar by 2025. They are already at weaponization threshold of 100KW today. When that happens, losing strikes to air defenses will basically come down to routing and random chance. No countermeasures, no 'deflector shields', if someone sees you fly overhead, you're dead.Missile biased effects delivery at that point will be essential because we will be losing 20-50 percent of our 'raid packages', no matter what.
The two things we need to provide for to make a missile centric strike warfare capacity work will be survivable targeting and capable comms networking. Targetting will basically come down to an emphasis upon electro optical low observables to match current, RF, biased stealth. And Comms will have to be point to point laser and MMW linked through relays, air and ground, so that Marines can get the call for fires out, a FAC can task a drone like the VARIOUS to perform a sanity check. And the shot be allocated to splash within, say, a 2 minute window.
Trying to get an 'all doing' system which makes that happen within a fighter sized package is going to cost a bazillion dollars. Separating out the missions (fires vs. targeting vs. commo) will allow you to package the avionics and effects into different platforms whose sum cost will be much lower, even in aggregate, than the totality of the one-airframe superweapon that the F-35B is falsely represented as being.
Until we see and act upon that, U.S. Military Power, biased as it is towards Airpower Support Dependence, is headed for a KT Boundary moment in the -very near- future. Whereby we will not have air superiority because the enemy will not be trying to outcompete us with fighters. At. All.
They will take out our heavy basing modes with missiles, they will shoot down our fighters with lasers and hunting weapons and then we will be down to thrown rocks and harsh language because we have become utterly dependent on that one fires delivery modality.
Fools and their Hard Power are soon parted.
What would happen if, at the outset of hostilities, someone with the capability detonated a nuclear bomb in the upper atmosphere? Would it have any effect on all our electronic gizmos and our ability to communicate with our electronic gizmos?
They’ll have been tested for it, maybe, depending on the requirements given. The performance isn’t likely to be widely advertised
Solid State Lasers will come to rule the roost of modern airwar by 2025. They are already at weaponization threshold of 100KW today. When that happens, losing strikes to air defenses will basically come down to routing and random chance. No countermeasures, no 'deflector shields', if someone sees you fly overhead, you're dead.
Unless it's cloudy, or raining in which case they're pretty useless.
Plus they can just put a reflective coating on the plane and reflect 90% of the energy away...
Missile technology as well as railgun technology will only get better as well I guess - my point being that I think he his heading in the right direction with the days of expensive monolithic superweapons - eg 100,000 tonne carriers and 150 million quid jets are numbered - in favour of decentralised warfare.
Unless it's cloudy in which case they're pretty useless.
I'm pretty sure a military laser capable of melting a plane will be capable of melting a cloud.
These carriers will have drones as their primary weapon before their end of life.
A few observations from various books on Cold War and fast jets;
Generally speaking, it is safer for the jet to stop, and then land than land and then stop. Arrestor wires are not infailable - at times the 1970's HMS Ark Royal was down to just one. The chances of a missed wire were high, accident rates in the 50's and 60's were horrendous. Read [url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Squadron-Britains-Topguns-dramatic-ebook/dp/B004I8WL7U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513675990&sr=8-1&keywords=phoenix+squadron ]Phoenix Squadron[/url]
The F35B might not be a dog-fighter or the fastest jet with the longest range out there. You don't have to win top trumps to be the best, technology plays a part as does crew training - it's more that the sum of it's parts. Read:
[url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sea-Harrier-Over-Falklands-PAPERBACKS/dp/0304355429/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1513676099&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=sharkey+ward ]Sea Harrier Over The Falklands[/url]
&
[url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tornado-F3-Navigators-Britains-Interceptor-ebook/dp/B00TM7A80E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1513676183&sr=1-1&keywords=tornado+f3 ]Tornado F3, Britains Last Interceptor[/url]
Furthermore, read about the Israeli campaign against the Syrian air-defences and air-force in 1982. Despite being provided with decent Soviet air defences and aircraft the Syrians lost 86 aircraft, the Israelis none. [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 ]Mole Cricket 19[/url]
The carriers and F35B should become a winning combination. The greater risk is the government not funding crew training or kit properly rather than the technology not performing.
Missile technology as well as railgun technology will only get better as well I guess
Need one massive Power supply to keep a rail gun going. Going to be carrying around it's own mini nuclear generator.
in favour of decentralised warfare.
Nothing new here, that's the whole reason d'etre of the nuclear subs second strike capability.
I'm pretty sure a military laser capable of melting a plane will be capable of melting a cloud.
Cloud will make targeting much more difficult and dissipate 99% of the energy. So a 100Kw laser becomes the equivalent of a 1Kw laser. You spend 99Kw heating water molecules and the 1Kw heating the plane, assuming you can even target it.
Stand in the sun on a sunny day and then wait till it clouds over, where do you think all that energy went?
NB There's nothing new here, laser links have been used for comms links for years and they basically don't work as soon as it gets foggy or rains. Adding more power doesn't change the physics, the attenuation scales, so the effective range is still killed dead by cloud/fog/rain.
Nothing new here, that's the whole reason d'etre of the nuclear subs second strike capability.
Even those will be out, the sea is becoming less and less opaque with each passing year.
The future of warfare is found in miniaturisation, cheapness eg the economics of a weapons systems effect, communication and Surkovs postmodern warfare.
Even those will be out, the sea is becoming less and less opaque with each passing year.
That I very much doubt, subs get quieter each generation and the ability to scan the sea is very very limited.
That I very much doubt, subs get quieter each generation and the ability to scan the sea is very very limited.
I'll see if I can find the article but I was reading something by a submariner explaining how much of a smaller place the oceans are becoming.
How much more expensive does each generation of sub get, to get quieter? Is this a linear phenomena (the improvements in quietness) - do you not think that at some point improvements in robotics means that we'll be able to flood the seas with drones for less money than building billion pound sardine cans?
How much more expensive does each generation of sub get, to get quieter? Is this a linear phenomena (the improvements in quietness) - do you not think that at some point improvements in robotics means that we'll be able to flood the seas with drones for less money than building billion pound sardine cans?
A really good read on this subject is...
[img] 
[/img]
There's a whole generation of subs known as [url= http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/akula-the-stealth-russian-nuclear-attack-submarine-the-us-22580 ]"The Walker class"[/url] after a Spy (US citizen) who told the Russians how easy it was for the UK/US to track their subs. The next Russian generation of Nuclear subs was 100x quieter than before and we went from recognising each Sub by name at x miles, to struggling to hear them at 500'!
These carriers will have drones as their primary weapon before their end of life.
Hence my question about the effect of a nuclear explosion. You can't operate a drone if you radio and radar don't work properly.
Boots on the ground win wars.
Hence my question about the effect of a nuclear explosion. You can't operate a drone if you radio and radar don't work properly.
autonomy & shielding.
I'll see if I can find the article but I was reading something by a submariner explaining how much of a smaller place the oceans are becoming.
depends on whose side you are on. and its not ours with the capability because:
Boots on the ground win wars.
has been prevalent since 9/11
You can't operate a drone if you radio and radar don't work properly.
I've watched enough Battlestar Galactica to be worried about the degree of networked military systems in modern western forces. I guess quantum encryption would in theory solve hacking issues, but every technology usually has an exploitable weakness somewhere along the chain.
mt - Member
Boots on the ground win wars
Putting the boots on the ground without having air superiority is a brave tactic
Autonomous drones? I've seen [i]War Games[/i], [i]Battlestar Galactica[/i] and [i]Terminator[/i].
200 litres an hour
Why don't they just drill a hole in the bottom and let it drain away?
Not many countries in the world have aircraft carriers and parking one a few hundred miles off the coast of a potentially hostile nation, bringing as much or more air power than most nations have full stop, sends a powerful signal and usually prevents any spat becoming hot.
[url= https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers/ ]What is the point of building super-carriers?[/url]
In a sweeping 2013 paper on the carrier’s future, Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce 1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S. carrier.
Although one missile might not sink a carrier, a single missile might cause sufficient damage to take it out of commission.
Further, the radar signature of a 100,000-ton ship is very large and the sensors used on the carrier’s current defense systems only increase that signature.
In such an attack, the fleet must be able to defend against a large number of incoming weapons approaching on evasive trajectories at greater than twice the speed of sound, while the attacker needs to only score a few hits. These new anti-ship missiles “put U.S. forces on the wrong side of physics,” the U.S. Naval War College’s Andrew Erickson warned.
Emerging anti-ship technology also places the aircraft carrier on the wrong side of basic arithmetic.
In its capacity as a force projection platform, the carrier operates by launching various types of attack and tactical fighter aircraft from its decks. The unrefueled radius of the Navy’s current F/A-18E Super Hornet falls within 390–450 nautical miles. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will have an unrefueled combat radius of 730 nautical miles.
The Department of Defense, however, estimates that the range of the DF-21D anti-ship missile to be 1,500–1,750 nautical miles and some speculate the range to be greater.
Taking a step back for a minute, I note that there have been comments about the new carriers being a project to keep Gordon Brown's constituents in work. It's worth remembering that from the very beginnings of the carrier project in the early 1990s, the Navy lobbied for better capability than that offered by the Illustrious class carriers in the wake of the Falklands conflict.
However, in classic British half-arsed style, we've created two white elephants.
We're rather missing the point by focussing on the F-35, because the QE like the current crop of Russian, Indian and Chinese carriers lacks the ability to launch dedicated AWACS platform aircraft, like the Grumman Hawkeye for example.
The Hawkeye can track targets over the horizon, allowing carrier crews more time to respond to potential threats. Post Falklands, the Royal Navy adapted Sea King helicopters to carry an obsolete radar in an inflatable bag in order to fulfil this requirement. This platform cannot reach the same altitude and speed of a Hawkeye, nor can it match the Hawkeye's endurance.
In order to launch an recover a Hawkeye type aircraft, the QE would require catapults and arrestor wires. In order to save approximately £20m from a £5bn project, cats and traps were dropped from the design.
The SDR review of 2010 reintroduced the cats and traps, at the expense of one of our new carriers. However, lobbying from BAe hiked the cost of fitting EMALS cats, because BAe were rightly concerned that the MoD would use the opportunity to procure F-18E or Rafale jets instead of the F-35C mooted in the SDR.
The F-35B is a compromised design, it lacks the payload capacity of the F-18E or Rafale, it also lacks the agility. It's also considerably more expensive. The F-35C also lacks agility and payload compared with the F-18E/Rafale, but it does without the complex STOVL fan.
As has already been mentioned, had we gone down the cat and trap route for the QE, we could interoperate with French and US Navy aircraft, a sensible choice in the light of the agreement we have with France to share our carriers should the need arise.
Hang on - not being able to have airborne early warning was pretty much the single biggest weakness of the whole Falklands conflict - HOW THE HELL DID WE NOT PUT THAT AT THE TOP OF THE REQUIREMENTS????
Rachel
The decision to make QEC 'all electric' was taken in 2002, there was a study into electromagnetic launch but rejected because of technical risk / costs. The notion that you could retro-fit steam catapults to a half-built ship in 2010 was pure fantasy. The technical problems will get fixed, whether there will be any operational air defence destroyers available is another question.
How difficult can it really be to fit a treadmill on the deck?
obbying from BAe hiked the cost of fitting EMALS cats, because BAe were rightly concerned that the MoD would use the opportunity to procure F-18E or Rafale jets instead of the F-35C
That is very interesting.
The F-35B is a compromised design, it lacks the payload capacity of the F-18E or Rafale, it also lacks the agility. It's also considerably more expensive. The F-35C also lacks agility and payload compared with the F-18E/Rafale, but it does without the complex STOVL fan.
You missed the part where you mention that F-18 and Rafale are ancient tech compared to the F-35.
The treadmill they can do, it's just the big fan to create the lift when the wheels are up to speed that's problematic
franksinatra - Member
obbying from BAe hiked the cost of fitting EMALS cats, because BAe were rightly concerned that the MoD would use the opportunity to procure F-18E or Rafale jets instead of the F-35CThat is very interesting.
I believe it's also incorrect. BAE had massive cancellation clauses that meant cancelling the second carrier would be almost as expensive as building it. Hence there was a lot of chat (which has died down now) about the second ship being mothballed from new
thestabiliser - MemberThe treadmill they can do, it's just the big fan to create the lift when the wheels are up to speed that's problematic
If they just made the ship really fast they wouldn't have needed a ramp, catapults or a treadmill!
- do you not think that at some point improvements in robotics means that we'll be able to flood the seas with drones for less money than building billion pound sardine cans?
Nope not anytime soon, just the amount of power they would need to travel in the sea any significant distance is problematic. Plus you could probably stop them with something as simple a net.
You missed the part where you mention that F-18 and Rafale are ancient tech compared to the F-35.
Yes, the Rafale/F-18E are fourth gen fighters, the F-35 is fifth generation. But such comparisons are meaningless when you consider that the mooted F-35B carries less ordnance, with reduced range, with significantly compromised AWACS cover and is less agile. Much of the technology of the F-35 is immature and requires a great deal of investment before it's fully capable. In the current economic climate, it's unlikely that funds will be found to fix the longstanding issues of the F-35, so buying a legacy platform off the shelf would've been more sensible.
The best case scenario would have been a mix of F-35C and F-18E/G type aircraft with a dedicated AWACS platform. However, it's likely that the normal compliment of jets on the QE will be as few as fourteen F-35Bs.
Hang on - not being able to have airborne early warning was pretty much the single biggest weakness of the whole Falklands conflict - HOW THE HELL DID WE NOT PUT THAT AT THE TOP OF THE REQUIREMENTS????
It was, but before the project morphed into it's current form. I understand that the AWACS requirement will be filled by Merlin helicopters, which will be an improvement on the ancient Sea Kings, but not anywhere near as effectively as a Hawkeye would be.
PJM1974 - Member
Yes, the Rafale/F-18E are fourth gen fighters, the F-35 is fifth generation. But such comparisons are meaningless when you consider that the mooted F-35B carries less ordnance, with reduced range, with significantly compromised AWACS cover and is less agile. Much of the technology of the F-35 is immature and requires a great deal of investment before it's fully capable. In the current economic climate, it's unlikely that funds will be found to fix the longstanding issues of the F-35, so buying a legacy platform off the shelf would've been more sensible.
The comparisons are meaningless in the same way your agility one is - it's not designed to be as agile. The tech is still maturing, so shortly it'll be light years ahead of your 4th gen fighters. Economics will also say that you'll be wanting to swap out the (1970s) Hornet design long before the F-35
You cannot trade hulls jammed up against predictable landward targeting localization, for over the beach support.
That's what I was going to say.
I take the point that a stealthy aircraft carrying a range of sensors need not be agile. However, the F-35 has development problems with the latter, which we may not be able to fund fixes for. As for the former, the stealth technology is not completely guaranteed to prevent detection, together with the development of new radar technologies, we may find ourselves in an arms race which we cannot easily - or cheaply - win.
The whole reason why we the QE exists in it's current form is the tradeoff between cost vs performance vs politics (by that I mean the compromises reached with various project partners). I do not believe that the QE and F-35B represents the best compromise.
Also, the F-18G is a dedicated electronics warfare platform. Australia's Super Hornets can be used in this role or as a multi-role fighter/attack platform. Moreover, Boeing has developed conformal tanks and internal weapons stations which can be retrofitted to the Super Hornet in a manner similar to that seen on the F-15E Strike Eagle, but with improved stealth performance and a reduced cost compared with the F-35B/C.
Please forgive the ever so slightly jingoistic source, but it's analysed here:
[url= http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8ruCBiJbYAhXLJsAKHWlqCloQFgguMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-buzz%2Famericas-lethal-f-35-vs-f-18-super-hornet-who-wins-15670&usg=AOvVaw2tD1lWXbGw-ZDS3zXmB7oB ]National Interest[/url]
Hang on - not being able to have airborne early warning was pretty much the single biggest weakness of the whole Falklands conflict - HOW THE HELL DID WE NOT PUT THAT AT THE TOP OF THE REQUIREMENTS????Rachel
I imagine it's in a drone programme, the activities under taken lend themselves to this as your loiter isn't limited by the crew and you can put up more cheaper drones
I'd be more worried whether we could actually put one carrier battlegroup to sea never mind two. The logistics support is high and expensive.
It's all mute if Corbyn gets in, the expeditionary capability such as it is will be gone in less than a single term and benchmarked against Germany's to provide a fig leaf
What is the actual fighting lifespan of these vessels? Type 40 combat life is about 140 seconds I think I've seen recently...?
[url= https://medium.com/war-is-boring/all-the-things-the-british-military-cant-do-anymore-9560939f3d5 ]All the things the British can't do any more[/url]
F-35 is a white elephant. Limited ordinance, woefully behind schedule, still loads of defects to fix and against tailban etc massively OTT (better off with a Sky raider or A-10). Stealth is already compromised (AWAC's can see F-22,s well enough to vector jets against them). The Russians and Chinese won't be far behind and the S-400 anti air system is said to be able to see stealth aircraft.
Carriers are dead ducks without decent missile defence platforms around them which we don't have and the Russians are deploying a hypersonic missile (I believe our best interceptor struggles to hit Mach 3 targets) and I bet they can't wait to flog the export version to our enemies. Far cheaper to convert supertankers to "expendable" flat tops flying drones etc.
Exactly this ^ (both posts)
Our procurement systems are broken, to be fair the same is to some extent true in the US but we've cut back so much funding that we're not even in the position to arm our destroyers with missiles anymore.
A combination of design flaws, cost cutting in production and poor planning has resulted in the current mess. While it might not be too much of a problem if we integrated our armed forces to work in concert with our regional partners, we seem to be doing everything that we can to piss them off.
As I understand it...
[b]Q:[/b] I am a country and I want to have an aircraft carrier ready all of the time. How many carriers do I need to achieve this?
[b]A (traditional carrier):[/b] You need 3 carriers. At any given time one will be ready, one will be at dock being reparied and/or refitted and one will either be at dock or preparing crew and pilots for the very difficult jobs of handling catapult take-offs and arrestor landings.
[b]A (STOVL carrier):[/b] You need 2 carriers. At any given time one will be ready and the other will be at dock being repaired and/or refitted. It only takes a week or two to train a pilot already familiar with land-based STOVL operations to convert to flying STOVL aircraft from a carrier.
Again, as I understand it, this is why we had 3 Illustrious carriers (yes they had STOVL aircraft but at the time we didn't know that training pilots for STOVL carrier operations was relatively easy) but we're only getting 2 QE carriers. Fitting catapults and shifting from STOVL aircraft would result in a loss of readiness that I expect would be pretty embarrassing for the MoD and the government.
On the subject of AEW I'm surprised that nobody's tried to plug the V-22 Osprey as a potential STOVL AEW platform. Given that most non-US carriers don't use catapults I'd have thought someone would consider it.
big_n_daft - Member
It's all mute if Corbyn gets in, the expeditionary capability such as it is will be gone in less than a single term and benchmarked against Germany's to provide a fig leaf
I for one would welcome a full public debate on this, to be honest. The UK wants to think it's a military big hitter but routinely tries to be so on the cheap. Instead of waving Union Jacks and banging on about Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Battle of Britain and D-Day we should face up to the choice of either funding our armed forces as necessary to maintain an effective expeditionary capacity or accept we don't want to spend that sort of money, scale back the military and deal with whatever reduced international influence that causes.
I for one would welcome a full public debate on this, to be honest. The UK wants to think it's a military big hitter but routinely tries to be so on the cheap. Instead of waving Union Jacks and banging on about Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Battle of Britain and D-Day we should face up to the choice of either funding our armed forces as necessary to maintain an effective expeditionary capacity or accept we don't want to spend that sort of money, scale back the military and deal with whatever reduced international influence that causes.
Agreed.
We cannot possibly fund new carriers, 138 F-35 jets, maritime patrol aircraft, new frigates, new destroyers, new (or heavily upgraded) main battle tanks, new rifles, new attack subs, improved communication infrastructures and of course a like for like replacement of Trident and the Vanguard subs.
We can either compromise our entire military (remember, the entire personnel strength of the army, air force and navy combined has fallen to around 80,000), or we have to make stark choices as to what we keep and what we lose.
Our nuclear deterrent is basically there to ensure that we're a player on the world stage, but we seem to have an incoherent foreign policy, to the point that we're quickly becoming irrelevant.
new attack subs
If only we had some nice SSKs......... oh 🙁
Did the new carriers get anti-missile systems in the end?
(remember, the entire personnel strength of the army, air force and navy combined has fallen to around 80,000),
It's fallen, it's not quite that bad - the regular army is supposed to be 80,000 + approx 30,000 reserves. The RAF is around 33,000 and the RN a little less, plus reserves for both. Tiny compared to what they were when the Cold War ended.
retro83 - Member
Did the new carriers get anti-missile systems in the end?
I don't know, but they're always expected to be escorted by a Type 45 destroyer and that's pretty much its entire reason for existing.
On the F35, the reality is that it is the most modern and capable fighter bomber flying, so why would we want a different aircraft? It is next level and next generation stuff. People love to say it's not as good a dog fighter as some current stuff....but it's not a dogfighter, though will stand it's own ground against any other fighter out there - the F18 is not as good a dog fighter as an F15/F16/Eurofighter/F22 and the F35 is another level above the F18. The strength in the aircraft is it's systems and it's electronic warfare capability.
A friend of mine is flying these. He believes he'll be part of the last generation of fixed wing combat pilots; everything will be drone / AI from here on in.