Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

The UK is now spending money to destroy nine maritime reconnaissance aircraft before ever using them and after spending 4b pounds to build them, because it can't pay the operating costs. So No, they won't buy a F-35B. The financial situations of Italy and Spain is as bad or slightly worse than the UK's so they too won't buy F-35B's. Israel could buy them, because it wouldn't pay for them, but maintaining a few would take too many man hours compared to their military value so those few will probably not be build. Remain Japan, South Korea and Australia.
An aircraft carrier must be able to maintain its aircraft and helicopters. To be able to maintain F-35B a carrier would be already larger than a helicopter carrier. Could you buy a still larger carrier if you add the difference in cost between that for 20 F-35B and 20 F-35C and be shut of the extra expense of the maintenance of the VTOL extra's? Australia could, I think, better use F-35C over a ski-jump. Or would that become F-35D, without catapult spools but with a better undercarriage? And would that become ever more expensive? They had better talk with India before deciding to build that carrier.
That leaves Japan and South Korea.

delft said:

The UK is now spending money to destroy nine maritime reconnaissance aircraft before ever using them and after spending 4b pounds to build them, because it can't pay the operating costs. So No, they won't buy a F-35B. The financial situations of Italy and Spain is as bad or slightly worse than the UK's so they too won't buy F-35B's. Israel could buy them, because it wouldn't pay for them, but maintaining a few would take too many man hours compared to their military value so those few will probably not be build. Remain Japan, South Korea and Australia.
An aircraft carrier must be able to maintain its aircraft and helicopters. To be able to maintain F-35B a carrier would be already larger than a helicopter carrier. Could you buy a still larger carrier if you add the difference in cost between that for 20 F-35B and 20 F-35C and be shut of the extra expense of the maintenance of the VTOL extra's? Australia could, I think, better use F-35C over a ski-jump. Or would that become F-35D, without catapult spools but with a better undercarriage? And would that become ever more expensive? They had better talk with India before deciding to build that carrier.
That leaves Japan and South Korea.

Click to expand...

The nine Nimrod MRA4s are being destroyed because the current UK government Chose not to bring them into service, after the top brass offered them up on a plate to save their beloved antique Tornados. All in all around £4Billion was pulled from the Defence Budget for this year... and handed over to the International aid budget, so we can give it directly to dictators and corrupt government officials all round the world. We are giving £2Billion a year to India, a country with three times as many Billionaires as the UK, a larger defence budget and it's own Space Program!

You seem to have lost your way as regards the F-35B/C/D? Why would you want to swap the Aussie carrier's (LHDs) potential wing of 'Bs for 'Cs? They cannot be recovered aboard after launch. The ships are to small to accomodate an angled deck and arrestor wires, hence the STOVL 'B being the preferred choice. Also, the 'C does not have catapult spools, it uses the nose tow method, and the 'Cs undercarriage is already far superior to the A/B undercarriage. If your carrier is a small flat top with a ski jump and otherwise accessible only to helicopters, the the 'B is your first and only choice.

Yes a carrier capale of operating STOVL jets will be larger than a helicopter only carrier, but what is your baseline for this? The Japanes Haruna and Shirane class DDHs can be classified as helicopter carriers as that is their primary function, albeit just three helos each. Likewise the French Jeanne d'Arc is a helicopter carrier, STOVL aircraft can be launched and recovered from the decks of all the aforementioned ships, though as they would be in VTOL mode they would be severely restricted in range and payload. So yes, STOVL carriers will be larger than nominal helicopter carriers as the takeoff roll/ski jump requirement puts a minimum length and width on the flight deck. Guiseppe Garibaldi and Chakri Narubet represent a minimum viable STOVL carrier in this respect. Once you have the flight deck you also have volume within the ship for the below deck hangar and lifts, to provide the maintenance for the air group.
Interestingly, the Garibaldi and Narubet are both considerably smaller than ships generally regarded as helicopter only carriers such as the French Mistral class and the American Tarawas and Wasps (originally specced with helicopters in mind and adding Harriers into the mix later). As a rule, carriers which operate STOVL aircraft also operate helicopters as part of their air group, so naturally they will be larger than helicopter only carriers.

If the British are going to spend a lot of money to install catapults (EMALS) in two carriers that they cannot afford to operate, they are certainly not going, on top of a handful of F-35C, to buy F-35B.

To look at something less depressing, a little research (courtesy Wikipedia) confirms that India has ordered a total of 45 MIG-29K. In addition to the first buy in 2004 of 16, including 4 MIG-29KUB two-seaters, 29 were ordered in January 2010.

This seems a lot for just two carriers, both of which – VIKRAMADITIYA ex-GORSHKOV and VIKRANT Type 71 – are credited with just 12 MIG-29K, in addition to 10 helicopters, incl. KA-31 (9 ordered). The published artist’s impression of ex-GORSHKOV shows 9 or 10 MIG-29K parked on the starboard edge of the flight deck. Adding the hangar, there should be ample space for more than that. But perhaps India had already the second Type 71 in mind when deciding the size of the buy. With 45 planes they should just be able to form three squadrons of 12 each.

It would be interesting to see other aircraft types than MIG-29K operating from Type 71, not least Rafale-M. As the CHARLES DE GAULLE seems to spending most of its woken hours in the Indian Ocean, there should be many opportunities to test this possibility, whenever the VIKRANT is going to be ready to go to sea. That would be a bit more challenging than operating Rafale-M off US carriers.

If India were indeed to show the way in carrier development, we would indeed be entering the Asian century!

PS: JEANNE D’ARC was retired last year without a designated successor, sadly breaking a more than 100 years old tradition in the French Navy. The HARUNE class is going, being replaced by the through-deck HYUGA class, as the SHIRANE class will by by the huge 22DDH class about 2014-15.

Indeed, the main point I know about F-35's is that they are all absurdly expensive. In my training I learned that the design vertical speed at touch down for carrier aircraft is twice that for normal aircraft, 6 m/s rather than 3 m/s. That's why it is difficult to design an aircraft for both functions and achieve a satisfying result. Adapting an aircraft later, as happened with F-4 and Su-27 is somewhat easier.
I have seen, but rarely read, many postings about Australia needing to buy an aircraft carrier. I expect that the Aussie government can easily find more useful ways to spend its money after the storm of this summer.
The BBC told me a few days ago that many Indians find it strange, indeed somewhat insulting, that the UK government still wants to pay so much money to India.

delft said:

The UK is now spending money to destroy nine maritime reconnaissance aircraft before ever using them and after spending 4b pounds to build them, because it can't pay the operating costs. So No, they won't buy a F-35B.

Click to expand...

Different circumstance entirely. We are going to disagree on this. Time will tell...political circumstances change with elections, as do budgetary priorities.

delft said:

The financial situations of Italy and Spain is as bad or slightly worse than the UK's so they too won't buy F-35B's.

Click to expand...

Again, you are drawing conclusions based on shifting sand. Same answer as above.

All of these countries have made commitments and will continue to make commitments to their national interest and defense. All of them have decks already afloat which will demand something to fly off of them. Maybe fewer somethings, maybe fewer decks...but that will depend on the geopolitical landscape as well. Time will tell.

delft said:

Israel could buy them, because it wouldn't pay for them, but maintaining a few would take too many man hours compared to their military value so those few will probably not be build. Remain Japan, South Korea and Australia.

Click to expand...

I believe all nine partner countries will buy F-35s in various flavors. I also believe that both "Security Sales" partners will too...and that the numbers in the last category will grow.

delft said:

An aircraft carrier must be able to maintain its aircraft and helicopters. To be able to maintain F-35B a carrier would be already larger than a helicopter carrier. Could you buy a still larger carrier if you add the difference in cost between that for 20 F-35B and 20 F-35C and be shut of the extra expense of the maintenance of the VTOL extra's? Australia could, I think, better use F-35C over a ski-jump. Or would that become F-35D, without catapult spools but with a better undercarriage? And would that become ever more expensive? They had better talk with India before deciding to build that carrier.
That leaves Japan and South Korea.

Click to expand...

Several of the nations you speak of already operate jump-jet carriers with the Harriers that are smaller than what you speak of. They will most probably gravitate towards keeping those vessels (even as they build others) and using F-35Bs. Allthough an F-35C could conceivably take-off from a ramp deck, it cannot land. There simply is not enough room on these smaller vessels that Italy, Spain, Korea, etc. operate and they will not accomodate the arrestor systems. They need the VSTOL at least, if not VTOL capability.

I believe, despite the issues facing the program, that it is already progressing nicely. Many aircraft have already been built, many more are being built now and as they tests proceed, short of something catastophic coming along, the program will produce all three variants and those aircraft will be bought in large numbers by the US and smaller numbers by the partner countries. Italy is still planning on 60+ VTOL and 60+ CTOL. Canada, Australia, and Israel will each order around 100 probably, mostly CTOLs but Australia and Israel will also order some VTOLs.

Japan and Korea are likely to order some of each.

Singapore is going to order some...and I believe even Thailand will experess interest in a few for its Naruebet.

Dokdo (Korea)
Hyuga (Japan)
22DDH (Japan)
Garibaldi (Italy)
Cavour (Italy)
Asturias (Spain)
Juan Carlos (Spain)
Naruebet (Thailand)
Canberra (Australia)
Mistral (France)
America (US)
Wasp (US)

All of these classes will benefit from the J-35B and I believe most of them will utlimately fly them (if they remain in service).

Again, those are my best estimates at this time...and it is time that will tell. We will have a much better view of this in 4-5years time as to what is actually happening. Probably within 3 years, the contracts will make it clear too.

Indeed the sands are shifting. Counties like Spain and Italy have no threat against their security in which jet aircraft afloat can play any role. They developed this capability because it might be useful if the next Afghanistan happened to border on an ocean and as satellites of the US their help might be required. Also there are toys for the navy to play with.
In view of the development of the Afghan war, the political decline of the US and the financial crisis these 'commitments' look ever more absurd.

delft said:

Indeed the sands are shifting. Counties like Spain and Italy have no threat against their security in which jet aircraft afloat can play any role. They developed this capability because it might be useful if the next Afghanistan happened to border on an ocean and as satellites of the US their help might be required. Also there are toys for the navy to play with.
In view of the development of the Afghan war, the political decline of the US and the financial crisis these 'commitments' look ever more absurd.

Click to expand...

History shows they are not in the least "absurd" and in order to be prepared when the time comes...because when the time does come that you need such vessels and their instruments it will not be according to a "planned" time table...the manufacturing, the technology, and the infrastructure have to be in place, as do the instruments themselves if a nation wants to be in any kind of position to defend its own interests or assist its allies in doing the same.

Use of terms like "toys" and "absurd" are discredits to the individuals serving to protect their citizenry on such vessels and clearly marks the particular political slant...and that's fine. But I promise, if and when the time comes that such vessels are necessary (and you need only look at history over the last 100 years to know that they will), then they will not seem absurd or "toys" in the least.

But enough said there...the forum understandably frowns on getting into political discussions of this nature...I just want to point out that, for the record, and for a fact, politics aside, the vessels and the aircraft are not toys or absurdities...even if you do not agree with their production.

You can surely not deny that the UK posture, with four Trident boats, one aircraft carrier and half the escorts necessary for the flattop and with the destruction of the nine MRA4's is absurd.
But enough of politics. I'm thinking of thread to discuss new ship configurations. A short while ago a movie clip was mentioned that showed KUZNETSOV sailing majestically through a storm while an attending Udaloy looked most unhappy. We might discuss ship shapes that are small and still reasonably comfortable in those circumstances. Or new power plants. Is there already such a thread or should I start one?

The UK pols are gutting the Royal Navy and it is a shame. I still believe they will build both carriers and with six they will be able to protect them...but that is about all they will be able to do should both carriers be to sea at one time in different locations.

The RN is going to be woefully short of vessels...but the winds of politics can also change and I believe sooner or later they will come to their senses.

Obi Wan here on SD is very knowledgable about the UK and the RN and is very involved with the industry over there.

That thread sounds interesting and I believe it should be a seperate thread.

delft said:

You can surely not deny that the UK posture, with four Trident boats, one aircraft carrier and half the escorts necessary for the flattop and with the destruction of the nine MRA4's is absurd.
But enough of politics. I'm thinking of thread to discuss new ship configurations. A short while ago a movie clip was mentioned that showed KUZNETSOV sailing majestically through a storm while an attending Udaloy looked most unhappy. We might discuss ship shapes that are small and still reasonably comfortable in those circumstances. Or new power plants. Is there already such a thread or should I start one?

Click to expand...

Go for it!...