QEII Class - CATOBAR or STOVL?

[moahunter]

From this little bit of Wikipedia:

"As of August 2009, speculation mounts that the UK may drop the F-35B for the F-35C model, which would mean the carriers being built to operate conventional (CV) take off and landing aircraft using the US-designed non-steam EMALS catapults.[17][18]"

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier"]Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/Filea2_uk.svg" class="image"><img alt="Pa2 uk.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Pa2_uk.svg/250px-Pa2_uk.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/94/Pa2_uk.svg/250px-Pa2_uk.svg.png[/ame]

Also:

"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.

Part of the reason for the change is the huge costs of developing and building the "B" version, , with each aircraft coming with a price tag of a projected £105 million with technological issues still to be resolved. The CV version is expected to cost an estimated £90 million leading to a saving of £2.2 billion."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...isk-as-MoD-drops-jump-jet-fighter-engine.html

Which way do you think the Royal Navy should go? With the new EMALS, I can't help but think that CATOBAR is the way to go, given the extra range and payload, lower plane cost and maintenance. The only downside seems to be a slightly slower operational turn around as slower for planes to land / take off, and the impact on Rolls Royce and the US Marines (if they are left as the only buyer of F35B).

 

[swerve]

EMALS isn't ready yet, & the carriers are under construction. Incorporating it now would be risky, & would delay the building of the carriers. It might, perhaps, be incorporated in a future refit. They're designed to allow the fitting of catapults.

The RAF & RN both like STOVL, for several reasons including the operational flexibility it gives & the relative ease of carrier conversion. The speculation last year was quickly denied by the MoD. We are still planning to buy the F-35B.

The Italian navy & air force both intend to buy F-35B, & the Spanish navy is currently putting through sea trials a new ship designed to be able to operate it. It's safe to assume that as well as the USMC, the RAF & RN (in a joint force), the Italian navy & air force & Spanish navy will buy it.

 

[kev 99]

CVF is a STOVL design, and AFAIK it's been that way from very early in concept stages.

The three aircraft we have signed on the dotted line to buy are all STOVL varients.

Nothing has changed.

 

[moahunter]

Nothing has changed.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better to build an aircraft carrier from the outset that is more consistent with the aircraft carriers of the U.S. and France, and offers comparable power projection?

It seems EMALS is no sure bet, but the F35B is not either, per this web site that tracks the development of EMALS:

"EMALS may even prove critical to the future of the British CVF Queen Elizabeth Class, if the F-35B fighter proves unable to take off and land with full air-to-air armament. That’s a matter of some concern in Britain, which is looking into alternative landing approaches and sees the F-35C as its primary “Plan B” for naval aviation. "

EMALS: Electro-Magnetic Launch for Carriers

 

[StevoJH]

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better to build an aircraft carrier from the outset that is more consistent with the aircraft carriers of the U.S. and France, and offers comparable power projection?

The only real Benefit that CATOBAR will have over STOVL with the F-35 is a *slightly* longer range that can be overcome with buddy tanking, and the ability to carry the E-2D. There is every chance a STOVL or STOL AEW could be developed if the UK, Spain or Italy decided to bite the bullet and fund it.

 

[riksavage]

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better to build an aircraft carrier from the outset that is more consistent with the aircraft carriers of the U.S. and France, and offers comparable power projection?

It seems EMALS is no sure bet, but the F35B is not either, per this web site that tracks the development of EMALS:

"EMALS may even prove critical to the future of the British CVF Queen Elizabeth Class, if the F-35B fighter proves unable to take off and land with full air-to-air armament. That’s a matter of some concern in Britain, which is looking into alternative landing approaches and sees the F-35C as its primary “Plan B” for naval aviation. "

EMALS: Electro-Magnetic Launch for Carriers

The UK (& USMC) have undertaken numerous surveys reference STOVL vs. CATOBAR. STOVL aircraft generate higher sortie rates, which means more airframes in the air on CAS/CAP missions at any one time. Also unlike the US, the UK will only ever have one strike carrier on station at anyone time. During extended operations in far flung locations replacing STOVL is much easier than replacing CATOBAR airframes because you can cross-deck STOVL from any number of LHD/P's or from converted container ships. Plus QE can host sqn's from Spain and Italy, therefore in a joint op you could use a QE class as the dedicated strike carrier (hosting UK, Spanish & Italian F35B's) leaving the Spanish / Italian LHD's to focus on helo and amphibious operations. The F35B can also bring back what it carries off, a big plus over Harrier. Anti-STOVL advocates complain that the F35B lacks range and the QE Class can't host fixed wing MASC, however I anticipate the planned transfer of the UK's existing MASC to Merlin to be a temporary one, moving forward I expect to see a marinised long loiter UAV fulfilling this role capable of flying from a STOVL configured carrier.

EMALS is an expensive and untested (operationally) system. The QE's can be converted to CATOBAR later during mid-life refit. The option is always there.

The UK does have a back-up plan, should F35 costs continue to spiral out of control (Super Hornet or Rafi). Personally I hope the UK sticks with STOVL, they have years of unrivalled experience operating this type of aircraft at sea and on land.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think for small navies the F-35B is the choice.

If the RN pulled out of it, Spain and Italy would proberly not be able to afford to buy enough for carriers. Pushing the price up further.

Ships that are capable of transfering/landing/refueling/rearming F-35B
USN carriers (11) + several reserved mothballed
USMC amphibs (20) + many mothballed
Spains LHD (1)
Australia's LHD (2)
Italian carrier (1)
Frances carrier (1)

Nearly all LHD/LHA, large cargo ships and carriers would be capable of transfering and landing a unarmed/light F-35B. Theres proberly 50 ships worldwide that could do that, and the RN has several.

Ships capable of landing or transfering a F-35C:
USN carriers (11)
Frances carrier (1) (proberly can't hanger it tho).

The F-35B gives up almost nothing to the F-35C. Range is reduced, thats pretty much it.

 

[swerve]

You've missed something: any reasonable sized cargo ship can be quickly modified to transport F-35B, with them able to fly off to a carrier. That was done with Harrier in 1982.

It can also land on & take off from - fuelled & armed - the current light carriers of Spain & Italy, Principe de Asturias & Giuseppe Garibaldi, which aren't in your list. I'm not sure if their lifts can take it.

I don't think that the UK pulling out would make such a huge difference to the unit price for Italy & Spain. It would only mean a reduction of ca 25% in total orders.

 

[Thiel]

Would an AEW version of the V-22 make sense?
Per Wiki, it can't go quite as high or far as the E-2D, but it can carry a larger payload.

 

[AndrewMI]

Would an AEW version of the V-22 make sense?
Per Wiki, it can't go quite as high or far as the E-2D, but it can carry a larger payload.

I think that would be the preferred option for MASC. However it remains a problem.

As i understand it, there is an issue with fitting a Radome to a V-22 given the aircraft's rotating props. I think we will go for a Merlin MASC. There is no doubt this offers a compelling reason to use a CATOBAR system.

 

[StevoJH]

The BA609 could also be a cheaper possibility, depending on weight margins of course.

 

[Thiel]

I think that would be the preferred option for MASC. However it remains a problem.

As i understand it, there is an issue with fitting a Radome to a V-22 given the aircraft's rotating props. I think we will go for a Merlin MASC. There is no doubt this offers a compelling reason to use a CATOBAR system.

Well, they could fit it with a belly radar

 

[StingrayOZ]

You've missed something: any reasonable sized cargo ship can be quickly modified to transport F-35B, with them able to fly off to a carrier. That was done with Harrier in 1982.

No I think I included that. Yes, I did leave off the older italian carrier. But honestly the older small carriers (Spain and italy + thailand) are really not going to be suitable for the F-35. Light refuel is all they can do, if it can take the landings.

I don't think that the UK pulling out would make such a huge difference to the unit price for Italy & Spain. It would only mean a reduction of ca 25% in total orders.

Thats a pretty big pull out, Italian numbers also seem widely optimisitic. Spain hasn't yet confirmed into the program so there may be some additional volume there. Korea and Japan might be interested. India, perhaps in the future depending on many factors maybe even Australia, Thailand, Brazil, Arges, etc.

Until the UK actually starts flying and buying units in big volume everyone else is looking pretty timid about the F-35B. If the UK pulls out, many countries would also or dramatically cut numbers. The UK is big enough to hard negoiate with the US and through that the rest of the world gets some security about prices, on going costs, upgrades etc.

If the F-35B is a known quantity with low costs, good reliability, great upgrades and say Spain or Korea starts making low cost high quality carriers the market would improve. You might see another 5 countries operating new build carriers. Or atleast able to do so in a war time situation. For example in a war time situation, Australia would have 2 x 30,000t LHD capable of F-35B's and could obtain another given a need and enough time (5 years).

If they go the F-18/Rafale path, no one else is going to follow that one except maybe france.

I think for AEW UAV's are the future. STOL, able to stay up higher and longer than any manned aircraft with powerful radars, low operating costs. Once you have that much electronics and power its not a big jump to make it automated. I think the US was even talking about blimps.

 

[swerve]

No I think I included that. Yes, I did leave off the older italian carrier. But honestly the older small carriers (Spain and italy + thailand) are really not going to be suitable for the F-35. Light refuel is all they can do, if it can take the landings.

Thats a pretty big pull out, Italian numbers also seem widely optimisitic. ...

Ooops, yes, you did - "large cargo ships".

Principe de Asturias is the biggest of the three, & IIRC has the longest flight deck & biggest ski-jump of those three small Harrier carriers, & should be able to fly off an F-35B with a lot more than just light fuel. Chakri Naruebet (I didn't count her), is the smallest. Giuseppe Garibaldi - yes, perhaps not. Not very much bigger than Chakri N, & a lower ski-jump.

BTW, all three have long flight decks in comparison to their size. Unlike the Invincibles, they go right over the bow. And the full length should be usable for take off, giving a runway of similar length to Invincible. How much will an F-35B need - with a 12 degree ski-jump (but GG only has 4).

 

[moahunter]

The only real Benefit that CATOBAR will have over STOVL with the F-35 is a *slightly* longer range that can be overcome with buddy tanking, and the ability to carry the E-2D..

Other benefits are a lower price per aircraft (this may be significant), higher payload, more flexibility to change aircraft and use other "off the shelf" aircraft like Hawkeye, and less moving parts in the aircraft (the F35B has a complex lift fan that is going to require on-going maintenance, and is an extra point of potential failure).

 

[Sea Toby]

Other benefits are a lower price per aircraft (this may be significant), higher payload, more flexibility to change aircraft and use other "off the shelf" aircraft like Hawkeye, and less moving parts in the aircraft (the F35B has a complex lift fan that is going to require on-going maintenance, and is an extra point of potential failure).

I was under the impression the C version of the F-35 will cost more because its the most unlike the others, basically a larger aircraft....

 

[stoker]

Other benefits are a lower price per aircraft (this may be significant), higher payload, more flexibility to change aircraft and use other "off the shelf" aircraft like Hawkeye, and less moving parts in the aircraft (the F35B has a complex lift fan that is going to require on-going maintenance, and is an extra point of potential failure).

What arrangements are there going to be on the QE carriers to land a F35B when they have an outage on a lift fan?

I appreciate if it is in range of a land based airport, the pilot will divert to there.

But out at sea and not with in range of land, these outages can/will occur.

As a stoker on the HMAS Melbourne, we had a 'net' set up hooked on to an arrestor gear system for emergency landings. Admittedly, I never saw it used, or, heard it had ever been needed, but it was an operation part of Carrier landings.

Will the QE have a similar network, because as far as I know no 'arrestor' gear will be fitted as these carriers are purely STOVL.

 

[Sea Toby]

What arrangements are there going to be on the QE carriers to land a F35B when they have an outage on a lift fan?

I appreciate if it is in range of a land based airport, the pilot will divert to there.

But out at sea and not with in range of land, these outages can/will occur.

As a stoker on the HMAS Melbourne, we had a 'net' set up hooked on to an arrestor gear system for emergency landings. Admittedly, I never saw it used, or, heard it had ever been needed, but it was an operation part of Carrier landings.

Will the QE have a similar network, because as far as I know no 'arrestor' gear will be fitted as these carriers are purely STOVL.

Why bother, as the F-35B won't have the undercarriage to support arrestor gear? I would assume the British carriers would at least have a crash barrier, if not arresting gear....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Taking off or landing a 20 Ton F-35B on a GG or simular carrier would be pretty scary. It might be able to do it, just, in good conditions. However throw in bad weather and I wouldn't be so confident of ops, those carriers are pretty low too. I don't know if the decks could take it either, the F-35B is heavy. Like F-111 heavy.

Most are not going to operate ground strike so A2A loads might be suitable. Perhaps with some antishipping stuff.

With STOVL I don't think crash barriers are used, theres not a safe way to do it and the ships that that much smaller. I dunno, perhaps could explain why the harrier was lost at quiet high rates. Perhaps eject and buy a new one, or buddy refuel back to land.

The F-35B however has a super awesome maintence/diag system. failures should be a lot rarer.

 

[stoker]

Why bother, as the F-35B won't have the undercarriage to support arrestor gear? I would assume the British carriers would at least have a crash barrier, if not arresting gear....

This safety net was basically the 5th arrestor wire, it was attached to hydraulic arms which lay on the flight deck, and was only 'elevated' during an emergency landing. The plane landed on the deck and flew into this 'net' which wrapped around the plane/wings and brought it to a halt.

Is this what you meant by a 'crash' barrier?

The only other alternative if the plane can not safely by brought back on the deck by a 'crash' barrier/net, is to ditch along side.

A very expensive and some what more risky to the pilot scenario.