Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Nineteen months ago, when the new coalition government published its hurried and much-maligned Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), I was engaged in studying the review process for my dissertation. In interviews with officers and academics alike, all echoed the same warning: (I paraphrase)

‘The SDSR is only the beginning. You watch – the government will realise its mistake before the 2015 SDSR.’

And so it came to pass. On the decision to abandon the Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35B in favour of the catapult-launched F-35C the experts have been proven remarkably prophetic.

To be entirely fair, the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter did, in 2010, appear to offer three distinct advantages over the STOVL F-35B. Closer inspection and subsequent events, however, show these to be far from the ‘compelling evidence’ we were presented with in the SDSR.

Firstly, it is entirely true that the F-35C has a greater range and payload, operating out to 30% further and carrying almost 20% more weight. This ignores the facts that both variants can carry the full range of weapons that the UK intends to operate with the aircraft, and that the STOVL variant offers greater flexibility and agility – not least with regards to operating bases. Additionally, since 2010, the cost of fitting the necessary catapults and arrestor gear to the carriers has spiralled, cited as the primary reason for now reverting to the STOVL variant.

Secondly, in 2010, the F-35B was suffering from serious power and stress problems that threatened the future of the programme. Since January 2012, it has been declared back on track, albeit behind the other two and with a significant cost increase to the aircraft.

Thirdly, using catapult launched jets offered interoperability with French and American carriers and aircraft. This ‘requirement’ was parachuted into the SDSR at the last minute in order to justify selection of the F-35C. With jets and carriers due to enter service approximately simultaneously, interoperability was of no use in plugging the ten-year capability gap left by withdrawal of the Harriers and Invincible class carriers. Besides, weight issues mean that operating F-35s from the Charles de Gaulle looks unlikely to be possible. It is true, however, that abandoning ‘cats and traps’ will allow the new carriers and jets to enter service up to five years earlier. Furthermore, there are other important partner nations who operate STOVL carriers – Spain and Italy for example.

Click to expand...

navyreco said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Well, let's see, when going for crossdecking, which could be a huge advantage, who would you rather cross deck to to gain experience and to add capability?

The Spanish and Italians, who, and all credit to them, have some nice VSTOL carriers...but limited in their AEW capability, in their EW capability on strike missions, the range and payload issues already mentioned of their strike aircraft...or the US and France...and let's be honest, the real target here is the US.

With the new UK carriers capable of operating cat and trap E-2Ds the ability for defending the carrier (and its huge investment in manpower and capability and financial investment) is strengthened several fold over the helo AEW currently envisioned. This alone, IMHO, makes it more than worth it. To have, in essence, a super carrier with AEW coverage that is 200 or more mile in radius less than what you get with the true AEW aircraft is simply unacceptable in my opinion. Then add to that cross decking not of just the F-35C, but the F-18E/F super hornets, future US 5th gen air dominance fighters, future US 5th gen dedicated attack, EW, and ASW aircraft, and future advanced US AUAVs.

You end up with a much more capable carrier overall...a whole lot more capable and for their entire life

I would advise getting the lusty back into working order for VSTOL, crossdecking some US Marine aircraft and then bringing on a few F-35Bs when they are ready and using that as a stop gap until the Quenn Elizabeth is launched.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. The US could and should help this happen, politically and even financially. It would pay for itself several fold and be great for the US to be able to depend on a couple of more carriers of this capability to be available from one of our allies on the world scene and lighten the load, particularly in the Atlantic, but also the PG and Asia.

Click to expand...

Air Force Brat said:

Always think aHead, the things that come out of that noggin of yours boy, you make me look like a simpleton.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Hehehe...long time since I have heard the term "noggin!" You're dating us.

Did you see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of mine. A lot of technical, military eye candy there...and even for the USAF. But I think it could be done if we got our house in order. PM me on what you think.

Click to expand...

Actually there are only 185 Raptors extant today, and I'd still like to have 700, but getting it back into production should be a priority, failing that,the F-23 could benefit from the not a Raptor factor, and in spite of a slightly more complex FCS would likely be a nice addition.

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

Never going to happen..not even if Ronald Reagan was president & a Republican congress was in power. To expensive and that F-22, let's face it, is a Lemon.

Click to expand...

Recent tests have demonstrated the effectiveness of new coatings applied to the flight deck of CVN Charles de Gaulle using a process tailored by DCNS. Phase I of this programme involved the application of new coatings to the landing zone, the portion of the flight deck subject to highest stresses.

The tests, involving landings by Rafale Marine combat aircraft, demonstrated the new coating’s qualities. The advanced materials and application process help reduce nose gear loads suffered by in-coming aircraft while ensuring excellent grip between tyre and deck.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Hehehe...long time since I have heard the term "noggin!" You're dating us.

Did you see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of mine. A lot of technical, military eye candy there...and even for the USAF. But I think it could be done if we got our house in order. PM me on what you think.

Click to expand...

delft said:

OT
Just a few remarks about your proposal, Jeff.

About freedom of navigation -
Rotterdam was the largest port in the world and is still growing. The maximum draft of ships entering the port is about 90 ft. I recently read about plans to increase the depth of water in the port of Charleston from 45 to 50 ft by 2024. In the mean time Rotterdam is now port 10 or 11 and among the first 10 six are Chinese when we include Singapore. Also China only borders on the Pacific, while the US also has coasts on the Atlantic, so China's interest in freedom of navigation is very much larger than that of the US.

About forcing the Iranians to accept a US friendly regime -
The CIA in concert with MI6 replaced a democratic government by the dictatorship of the Shah in 1953 and the Iranians were very unhappy about that. Besides the Iranians would be ashamed to accept a new puppet regime after seeing the Iraqis and the Afghans getting rid of US occupation. There are more Iranians than Iraqis and Afghans together.

Click to expand...