It's less an engineering issue as it is a political issue. With money and time anything is possible but the UK has made a decision to go with the F-35 more than a decade a go. So it will never happen.
It's less an engineering issue as it is a political issue. With money and time anything is possible but the UK has made a decision to go with the F-35 more than a decade a go. So it will never happen.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
UK offered India a naval version of the Typhoon, dont know how credible of a offer it would be though, India went for Rafale anyway
I guess, seeing how India will also have to outfit it's future carriers, that was just a "we could EADS also have develop & built a naval Typhoon, if you pay for it" offer. It would have been a pretty significant & expensive undertaking, I'm sure. And India didn't want to get through that.
I believe all these statements were just made to test the market. With the broad current choice of naval fighters it just is pretty hard to market another one that would still have to be developed.
As Obi Was pointed out the CATOBAR option is, in the end, more powerfull & also cheaper. What an intriguing reality. On another thought, the RAF's IDF Tornados will also have to be replaced by something worthwhile in the not so distant future. And a F-35C really is a viable option if you're going to get it anyway for the carriers. On the other hand, taking Bs to fill that role wouldn't be such a smart move, IMO.
I believe all these statements were just made to test the market. With the broad current choice of naval fighters it just is pretty hard to market another one that would still have to be developed.
As Obi Was pointed out the CATOBAR option is, in the end, more powerfull & also cheaper. What an intriguing reality. On another thought, the RAF's IDF Tornados will also have to be replaced by something worthwhile in the not so distant future. And a F-35C really is a viable option if you're going to get it anyway for the carriers. On the other hand, taking Bs to fill that role wouldn't be such a smart move, IMO.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Actually, partially true. While it is the same model, CdG's C-13 catapult is actually 15m shorter than the ones on USN CVN's, and is less powerful.
CdG cannot launch a fully laden Rafale under a number of conditions, and since F-35C weights more than Rafale, this will pose a problem. CdG C-13 catapult isn't as capable as the USN versions are in terms of launch power and it will pose problems for F-35C operations.
Actually, your analysis is incorrect.
The problem was redesigning and the costs of the EMALS. Instead of the expected £400m, it is believed the conversion would cost about £1.8bn, excluding any other design changes that are required to change from STOVL to CATOBAR. Not to mention the major developmental risks involved with EMALS; the UK would be the first nation to implement EMALS on a carrier, with all of the resulting technical issues.
And this was for conversion of one of the two carriers (Prince of Wales). Under the CATOBAR CVF plan, Queen Elizabeth would not be converted to CATOBAR, and instead be mothballed!
The switch to the F-35C by the UK was a political one not a military decision. The military only found out about the decision when the PMO announced it in the media, and many in the RN didn't believe the conversion from STOVL to CATOBAR would be as easy or as cheap as the government proclaimed it was going to be.
Buying the C would have been much more expensive for the UK in the long run, and the UK government knew this. However, in the SDSR, converting to the C gave a convenient excuse to kick the can down the road and delay the CVFs, which suited the powers that be just fine. They didn't expect the extra costs to convert the CVF's to cat and trap to show up so fast and so soon.
With development of the F-35B actually progressing very rapidly, and it is instead the C model that is encountering various technical issues, the risk level has switched from the B model to the C model.
I'm sorry but you are wrong on so many counts; The cost of fitting EMALS to a single QEC HAS NOT spiralled up to £1.8Billion. This is closer to the cost of outfitting BOTH carriers, not one. Unless of course you take the word of a biased journalist over the official statements of the USN. They are the ones selling the equipment, and have clearly stated THIS IS THE PRICE YOU PAY. At this point in time all the conversion work exists only on computers at the design office. Are you saying the cost of these computers has gone through the roof? The pay packets of the design team? Have the ACA stated the cost of conversion has gone this high? After all they are the ones who will be doing the work, not journos in London.
The QEC were designed to accept catapults and arrestor gear from the start, space and weight being allocated in the design,- and this was for steam catapults meaning donkey boilers. EMALS does not require boilers, and the catapults themselves are estimated to weigh only 25% of a conventional steam installation (no steam receivers for a start). The whole 'spiralling costs' story smacks of desperation on the part of certain vested interests who realised the ships were going ahead quite well without interference from the politicians.
Simply put, going back to the 'B' and STOVL configuration saves a little money in the short term, but costs much more in the long term (more aircraft required to do the same job, and they cost more individually) Also if the ONLY AIRCRAFT in the world that can be flown from STOVL configured ships is cancelled, you are left with huge LPHs.
Going with the 'C' means spending a little more up front for the conversion but greater savings down the line (less aircraft needed, costing less per aircraft to buy and operate). Also if the C is cancelled, their are other aircraft theat can be bought instead, so we have options (eg RAFALE, Super Hornet).
CdG may have difficulty launching F-35Cs at full weight, but they won't operate at full weight on every sortie anyway. MTOW will only be achieved when all the underwing pylons are fitted to carry external stores, very different from normal ops with internal carriage only. For cross decking and training CdG will easily be able to launch and recover Lightnings. The only impediment to her operating Lightnings for any protracted period will be the lack of logistical and engineering support (ie spares and qualified support personnel as well as suitable weapons). A few years ago amny posters on this and other forums were confidently stating the F-35B could not be operated from the Invincible class or any other extant 'Harrier Carrier' because it was too large and too heavy to fit on the lifts. Nonsense. Officers aboard HMS Illustrious told me they would have no great difficulty operating Lightnings from the ship without any major modification. The uninformed posters took the aircraft's Max TakeOff Weight and assumed that to be it's normal weight hence it would be too heavy for the lifts. Aircraft only travel to and from the hangar deck of a carrier when unarmed and de fuelled. The lightning is about 13 tonnes empty; Lift capacity on an Invincible (and also on the other Harrier Carriers) is around 18.5 tonnes. Lengthwise the aircraft is a tight fit but it fits nonetheless. I asked them how they would position the aircraft on the lift accurately in rough weather (with a clearance of just a few inches) and they said they would simply put it on the lift diagonally, suddenly the clearance all round is several feet. Problem solved.
The QEC were designed to accept catapults and arrestor gear from the start, space and weight being allocated in the design,- and this was for steam catapults meaning donkey boilers. EMALS does not require boilers, and the catapults themselves are estimated to weigh only 25% of a conventional steam installation (no steam receivers for a start). The whole 'spiralling costs' story smacks of desperation on the part of certain vested interests who realised the ships were going ahead quite well without interference from the politicians.
Simply put, going back to the 'B' and STOVL configuration saves a little money in the short term, but costs much more in the long term (more aircraft required to do the same job, and they cost more individually) Also if the ONLY AIRCRAFT in the world that can be flown from STOVL configured ships is cancelled, you are left with huge LPHs.
Going with the 'C' means spending a little more up front for the conversion but greater savings down the line (less aircraft needed, costing less per aircraft to buy and operate). Also if the C is cancelled, their are other aircraft theat can be bought instead, so we have options (eg RAFALE, Super Hornet).
CdG may have difficulty launching F-35Cs at full weight, but they won't operate at full weight on every sortie anyway. MTOW will only be achieved when all the underwing pylons are fitted to carry external stores, very different from normal ops with internal carriage only. For cross decking and training CdG will easily be able to launch and recover Lightnings. The only impediment to her operating Lightnings for any protracted period will be the lack of logistical and engineering support (ie spares and qualified support personnel as well as suitable weapons). A few years ago amny posters on this and other forums were confidently stating the F-35B could not be operated from the Invincible class or any other extant 'Harrier Carrier' because it was too large and too heavy to fit on the lifts. Nonsense. Officers aboard HMS Illustrious told me they would have no great difficulty operating Lightnings from the ship without any major modification. The uninformed posters took the aircraft's Max TakeOff Weight and assumed that to be it's normal weight hence it would be too heavy for the lifts. Aircraft only travel to and from the hangar deck of a carrier when unarmed and de fuelled. The lightning is about 13 tonnes empty; Lift capacity on an Invincible (and also on the other Harrier Carriers) is around 18.5 tonnes. Lengthwise the aircraft is a tight fit but it fits nonetheless. I asked them how they would position the aircraft on the lift accurately in rough weather (with a clearance of just a few inches) and they said they would simply put it on the lift diagonally, suddenly the clearance all round is several feet. Problem solved.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Actually, the NAO disagrees with your assertion that the costs haven't increased. If you have closely followed the official figures, the NAO has actually redone the math and reported that the costs have indeed increased significantly due to technical challenges that EMALS presents.
Note that there is no plan to convert Queen Elizabeth, and she would be left in the STOVL configuration. To reconfigure her, it would most likely cost more because conversion occurred after construction, not during. Without converting Queen Elizabeth, the UK would essentially have the world's biggest LHA.
The problem is the major technical risks associated with EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. The UK isn't using a copy of the USN EMALS and AAG system; the United Kingdom system will differ (it is a 2-rail system whilst the Americans will operate a 4-rail system) which means that while the technology will have been tested, it will not have been tested in the form that the United Kingdom will be using it.
Unfortunately, the various issues has been circling around for the better part of the year, and has only come to a head now.
You have fallen for the 'Two rail/four rail' misnomer. EMALs has been successfully tested at Pax River for over a year now, and how many 'Raiils' does it have? One. So by your understanding the installation aboard the Ford class carriers will be even more problematic than on a QEC. For a start, nobody calls them 'Rails', They are individual catapults, part of a modular system, so you can fit one, two four or ten if you really want to. Our 'two catapults' per ship will use exactly the same systems as the Americans' 'Four catapults' per ship. We will be using exactly the same three wire Advanced Arrestor Gear as the USN. And the same landing sights as well.
The NAO may well be reporting in increase in the price being charged, but that is not the same as how much the system costs. Someone in the chain between the US and here may well be artificially inflating the costs, and that is a matter worth investigating, because it sound a lot like fraud. The fact remains the US have stated the cost of the 'cats and traps' per ship for us will be £850 Million per ship including installation. If BAe or some one else is asking more than that then their bluff needs to be called.
The only issues that are coming to a head are the anti carrier lobby realising the ships are being built after all (when they so smugly predicted the keels would never be laid) and indeed the project is making good progress (particularly as the politicians haven't interfered for a while) and the light blue and their fanboys are at panic stations now, briefing against the carrier project as much as possible.
The NAO may well be reporting in increase in the price being charged, but that is not the same as how much the system costs. Someone in the chain between the US and here may well be artificially inflating the costs, and that is a matter worth investigating, because it sound a lot like fraud. The fact remains the US have stated the cost of the 'cats and traps' per ship for us will be £850 Million per ship including installation. If BAe or some one else is asking more than that then their bluff needs to be called.
The only issues that are coming to a head are the anti carrier lobby realising the ships are being built after all (when they so smugly predicted the keels would never be laid) and indeed the project is making good progress (particularly as the politicians haven't interfered for a while) and the light blue and their fanboys are at panic stations now, briefing against the carrier project as much as possible.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
OMG i feel so embarresed watching this article on Channel 4 news, how shameful, how can we have such muppets leading the countrys defence requirments, Philip Hammond please leave the country on the next plane out
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
TBH I'm just glad that the RN will be getting two carriers in service, albeit alternating. I really don't care about the rights or wrongs of it anymore, the whole business has been depressing.