Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Telegraph : UK MoD switching from F-35B to F-35C, will redesign carriers to make the switch
SlowMan    8/6/2009 11:06:02 AM
< link > "In a significant about turn the MoD has indicated that it will ditch the jump-jet version of Joint Strike Fighter in favour of the conventional model, as the planes for its two new aircraft carriers. The Daily Telegraph has learnt from senior defence officials that an announcement will be made this autumn." "The about-turn will also mean that the first of two 65,000 tonne carriers under construction, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will have to be redesigned with cost penalties. It is possible the recent £1 billion rise to £5 billion for the carriers might by partly attributable to the change of plan. But senior MoD sources believe that choosing the "CV" variant over the "B" will give the Navy considerable advantages as the conventional fighter can fly further and carry a far bigger bomb payload. Both variants are built by Lockheed Martin."
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
VelocityVector       8/6/2009 11:25:00 AM

How curious the timing of this announcement given they just started her build.  Halt construction for redesign == attempt to scuttle British carrier force?  Presupposing the report is valid.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       8/6/2009 11:46:27 AM
Well.  Taken at face value, this is a good, common-sense decision.  It allows them to operate the far more capable model of the F-35, allows them to have real AEW in the form of Hawkeyes, and ability to have French and U.S. aircraft do cross-deck operations. 
 
It will cost them more, both in terms of redesigning the carrier and in terms of ongoing operational costs -- CATOBAR carrier operations require constant training, unlike STOVL which is comparatively easier.  But the added capability is worth it.
 
Of course, this is also a hedge against the JSF failing completely, since they will now have other options for a credible naval strike fighter.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Queen Elizabeth operating a couple of squadrons of Hornet FGR.1s in place of JSFs.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I'm with Velocity   8/6/2009 11:58:30 AM
this is much more likely to KILL the CVF than make it a better program.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       8/6/2009 12:16:56 PM
Well it will probably cause the demise of the second carrier.  The CVF program is already deep into cost overruns, and the cost of the design modifications and added equipment won't help a bit.  Adding catapults is not a trivial change.  I wonder if they'll try to go with EMALS rather than steam.
 
Another side effect is that this may well doom the USMC purchase of the F-35B, since their cost is going to rise sharply as a result.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I wouldn't be planning on EMALS   8/6/2009 12:21:18 PM
that's just really tempting fate...right now EMALS is fraught with problems.  It has reduced the Gerald R Ford to "The World's Largest Helicopter Carrier".
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       8/6/2009 1:41:23 PM
I would guess that EMALS is not practical for a conventionally powered carrier. The energy requirements are enormous, involving generators, energy storage, power conversion, and a 100,000 hp electric motor.
 
You really need a nuclear power plant to make this economic.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       8/6/2009 1:54:46 PM

Even with nuclear power EMALS may not be economic ;>)  What a clusterfudge of assumptions and shortcutting. 0.02

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       8/7/2009 3:53:08 AM
 To get that done properly, you'd be looking for a total redesign of the deck from a through deck to an angle deck layout to allow simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft, so that's going to be a corker of a change.
 
There's time to do it as it's understood that the 35B is already slipping two years so if it can be done, then it'd be a Good Thing. We might well end up flying SHornets instead, but I can't see that as being a total disaster.
 
I have mixed feelings, put it that way but if it gets us a working carrier capable of taking a cat launch with an arrested landing, that's a game we can get back into. The USN have already been very generous with helping us cross train personnel on their carriers. It might work is all I'm saying.
 
Ian
 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       8/7/2009 6:38:28 AM
To get that done properly, you'd be looking for a total redesign of the deck from a through deck to an angle deck layout to allow simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft, so that's going to be a corker of a change.
 
The deck is already configured to accommodate an angled deck layout:
 

 
Eliminating the ski ramp and adding arrester gear is comparatively simple; the hard part will be adding the catapults and the attendant steam piping.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    But Phaid   8/7/2009 9:33:43 AM
IF what was posted below in the thread is true...THERE CAN'T BE STEAM PIPING.  The CVF is turbine powered...there is no steam plant, for propulsion.  And there is NO ROOM for the installation of a dedicated steam plant for launch operations.  Making EMALS, or it's British/European, equivalent the only option for catapult operations.  And EMALS is in serious trouble, technically.
 
Bottom-line: without F-35B there may be no CVF, because F-35C will require a system that doesn't yet exist...making the whole CVF project pointless, no air group, because nothing to launch or launch with, and then there's no need for an aircraft carrier.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy