Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Royal Navy Exits The Cold War
SYSOP    10/4/2014 5:42:55 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Nate Dog    F-35B   10/4/2014 8:51:44 AM
Don't think they'll be getting the C's any more, last i read that got shit canned and they're back to buying th VSTOL B's.
 
Quote    Reply

Stephen       10/4/2014 12:39:34 PM
Yes they are looking at the F35B. Unfortunately with the thrust (heat ) required to get a heavyweight plane like the F35B on and off decks (they do normally take of using the ski slope) it burns holes in the deck. They are now trying to find a solution and the expected date for all this to be completed is 2020. So no rush then?
 
Quote    Reply

Batou    The Blue Isles    10/5/2014 3:11:33 AM
Winter is coming, John Snow and you still know nothing.
 
The world is changing faster than we think and the bean counters, the accountants, the lords of coin, who now rule the roost, think like nothing is going to change.......... But there's are change coming and the ISIS/ISIL is being about that change. Weather (pun intended) we like it or can afford it - that is not our call to make.. 
 
Quote    Reply

UK2014    Updated information to article   10/5/2014 2:57:59 PM
This article is a little out of date. The F-35C option was closed in 2012- see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171. It's F-35b - a final decision. And the QEs can actually carry much more than 34-45aircraft - at a push, closer to 70 in a surge capacity, not unlike Nimitz class carrying usually much less than the 90 plus aircraft they say they can. So the interesting thing is as they are there for 50 years, half-way through their lifetime, they will have to procure new aircraft post the f-35b which almost certainly won't be STOVL - so that will be the time to do EMALS conversion. 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       10/5/2014 4:41:50 PM
An EMAL is a LINAC
 
Where are they going to get the ROOM for the thrower assembly one a Queen Elizabeth?, That takeoff run is SHORT. And from where is the electricity to come? The Americans are tearing their hair out trying to install one on a Nimitz. The juice is there, but the room for the cycloverters isn't, at least not yet.     
This article is a little out of date. The F-35C option was closed in 2012- see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171. It's F-35b - a final decision. And the QEs can actually carry much more than 34-45aircraft - at a push, closer to 70 in a surge capacity, not unlike Nimitz class carrying usually much less than the 90 plus aircraft they say they can. So the interesting thing is as they are there for 50 years, half-way through their lifetime, they will have to procure new aircraft post the f-35b which almost certainly won't be STOVL - so that will be the time to do EMALS conversion. 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/5/2014 9:11:30 PM
The RN carrier program is akin to a very small monkey waving its tiny penis in a tree, the RN with a WOEFUL number of hulls is seriously aiming to field 2 carrier strike groups??
 
They already look like a design abortion, featuring a ski-ramp that is capable of fielding precisely ONE currently planned strike aircraft that also happens to be the most compromised of three variants and with (by a country mile) the highest level of risk attached - i.e. costs - the RN will be very lucky btw if it ever sees more than 30 of these planes delivered - current plans are for 48 (and two carriers) which means at a stretch there might be 18 per carrier allowing for training and reserves but just wait and see what happens in the 2015 SDR once the reality of the depth of budget cuts required actually hits home - this entire project is a strange mixture of hubris and conservatism - compromised vessels that as usual are "fitted for but not with" which I expect will be of scant comfort to anyone who wonders whether Phalanx alone is a credible last-ditch defense for a capital ship - similarly whether a 65,000 tonne carrier is really necessary to field a derisory 18 strike aircraft and what effects that reduced carrier air wing has on the survivability of the platform itself (half the platforms doing defensive CAP missions?)- if the capability exists to "surge" (which is no simple matter) then you better ask where that capacity will come from given a likely maximum (even with the projected (and optimistic) purchase of 48 units) of about 35-40 in theater. 
 
And all of this for a Navy that has more admirals than hulls and more civil servants than sailors.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/6/2014 11:47:03 AM
"is seriously aiming to field 2 carrier strike groups??"
 
I suspect that is has 2 purposes (in theory)
 
1st.. in actual combat (where one ship might get bent.. say a Falklands pt II) you want someplace to land your aircraft..
 
2nd reason.. being.. you might want to have a high probability of having at least one available.. and not be completely out the carrier option.. when one is down for refit / repairs.. (see the French )
 
So - anyone seriously feeling they need carriers.. should probably consider a two carrier minimum..  otherwise.. one is just a show piece and may not be available when needed..
 
And if you can't afford two... you probably should just avoid them all together and get some more air defense hulls.. and few subs...   My foot slogger 2cents..
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/6/2014 2:03:52 PM
And if you can't afford two... you probably should just avoid them all together and get some more air defense hulls.. and few subs...   My foot slogger 2cents..
 
Which is absolutely right imo - to clarify, I'm suggesting that 2 carrier strike groups is more than the RN can afford if the current funding climate is the same or worse for the foreseeable future (and it will require nigh-on the entire fleet to do so) and that one hull is, for the exact reasons you stated, useless in that it represents too great a liability to fleet effectiveness to put at risk in wartime - so we have two carriers that each have 65% the displacement of the Nimitz but with about 25% of the air wing and thus capability defended by a fleet that is already massively overstretched with peacetime taskings when that same investment and future funding requirement could have provided a massive increase in general fleet capability whether subs, frigates patrol craft or destroyers, which would result in a far greater meaningful strike capability - economies of scale mean that for 18 air craft of which only a few are able to do deep strike missions on any given day you either do it the USN way or are better off investing in Tomahawks and long-ranged UCAV platforms.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       10/6/2014 3:30:46 PM
 
The QEs make lousy traditional aircraft carriers, but they make dandy LHAs. And what was the critical need at the Falklands?    
 
SPEED of heliborne assault and decent CAS.


 

Which is absolutely right imo - to clarify, I'm suggesting that 2 carrier strike groups is more than the RN can afford if the current funding climate is the same or worse for the foreseeable future (and it will require nigh-on the entire fleet to do so) and that one hull is, for the exact reasons you stated, useless in that it represents too great a liability to fleet effectiveness to put at risk in wartime - so we have two carriers that each have 65% the displacement of the Nimitz but with about 25% of the air wing and thus capability defended by a fleet that is already massively overstretched with peacetime taskings when that same investment and future funding requirement could have provided a massive increase in general fleet capability whether subs, frigates patrol craft or destroyers, which would result in a far greater meaningful strike capability - economies of scale mean that for 18 air craft of which only a few are able to do deep strike missions on any given day you either do it the USN way or are better off investing in Tomahawks and long-ranged UCAV platforms.

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       10/6/2014 11:38:57 PM
Well, quite, and therein lies the point - what the USN has specified as a 45,000 tonne vessel would be a far better fit for the planned 18 F-35b's and it comes with a proper self defense system which is layered and features hard and soft kill options, and can also be rapidly assigned to humanitarian missions which means it has some chance of being useful in the foreseeable future. 
 
What gets me is the half-assed emulation of a "real" aircraft carrier as if what is actually being delivered is anything more than a tiny fraction of that - for doing occasional supporting (read: token) strike roles why not just go with an LHA and at least have a versatile platform - this obsession with trying to emulate the USN capability is sheer folly unless they are willing to devote the budgets necessary to achieve that in whole or part - which they aren't - and if not then get real and invest in reassembling something resembling a navy and not a coastal patrol force. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics