The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

It seems the RN wont simply be relliant on STOVL fighters for air defnce, and in that case the large investment in the F35B wont be usefull. If they choose a STOBAR design they would be much better off with F35C's and typhoons. if they do indeed go ahead with one of these designs the lerge investment in the F35 wil have been somewhat of a waste IMO. The CAS role the F35B would fulfill in the RAF could easily be done by future harrier variants, for alot less cost.

The RN & RAF have both become very fond of STOVL. The RN remembers very well how it was able to offload Harriers onto merchant ships to clear the decks of the carriers in 1982, & bring them back for arming, fuelling, & sending off to fight, thus significantly increasing the number of Harriers each carrier could operate. They also remember operating in sea states where CTOL aircraft were stuck on board. The RAF likes being able to use ships - all sorts of ships.

There are no future Harriers in the sense you mean. It's too late to develop one, & every likely significant customer is either going for F-35B or reverting to CTOL. The decision not to develop Harrier further was taken long ago. Instead, we put our money into F-35B - which is the future Harrier as far as we, Italy, the USMC & Spain are concerned.

 

[swerve]

I cant see the huge costs in navalising a Typhoon, especially given the capabilty. CATOBAR is a good idea and i'm not shure why it's been sidelined. At lest you get the capability for fixed wing tankers and AEW&C aircraft, rather than Sea King AEW. However if both of these options have been discarded then i agree F35B is the only choice. Although i was under the impression that the CVF would not just be a STOVL variant, but if that assumption is wrong then the F35B is the only choice. As a replacement for harrier i agree the F35B is the only aircraft available.

The cost of navalising Typhoon has been put at a similar sum to the UKs investment in F-35. Export prospects are zero.

You don't seem to have been following the CVF debate. It has always been intended to be STOVL. It's been decided to design the ships to allow for the future fitting of catapults, as an insurance policy*, but that's all.

As for AEW, CV-22 is being looked at as a possible future platform.

*They'll probably outlast the F-35B, & who knows whether there'll be a STOVL replacement?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The RN & RAF have both become very fond of STOVL. The RN remembers very well how it was able to offload Harriers onto merchant ships to clear the decks of the carriers in 1982, & bring them back for arming, fuelling, & sending off to fight, thus significantly increasing the number of Harriers each carrier could operate. They also remember operating in sea states where CTOL aircraft were stuck on board. The RAF likes being able to use ships - all sorts of ships.

I remember hearing those stories, the loved the flexability. But a lack of an AEW hurt quite a bit too, and i'm not too sure how well Sea King AEW stacks up to E2.

There are no future Harriers in the sense you mean. It's too late to develop one, & every likely significant customer is either going for F-35B or reverting to CTOL. The decision not to develop Harrier further was taken long ago. Instead, we put our money into F-35B - which is the future Harrier as far as we, Italy, the USMC & Spain are concerned.

I know I know. I'm just saying that the desision to invest heavily in F35B was influenced heavily by the need to equip STOVL carriers, and since you dont nessesarily need one, i'm wondering wether it was a good investment is all. better hariers could fulfill the RAF's job for less cost, but less capability too.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The cost of navalising Typhoon has been put at a similar sum to the UKs investment in F-35. Export prospects are zero.

You don't seem to have been following the CVF debate. It has always been intended to be STOVL. It's been decided to design the ships to allow for the future fitting of catapults, as an insurance policy*, but that's all.

Guilty! Wikki is about as far as i got. I thought you guys were going to go for a STOBAR/CATOBAR design. I dont see the point in STOVL if you have the ability for CATOBAR. You can allways have additional STOVL aircraft in RAF service say that you can puddle jump out there. But your going to build a big enough ship that has the capability for cat's and still use STOVL??? i dont get it!

As for AEW, CV-22 is being looked at as a possible future platform.

*They'll probably outlast the F-35B, & who knows whether there'll be a STOVL replacement?

Sounds like a much better idea.

 

[harryriedl]

Guilty! Wikki is about as far as i got. I thought you guys were going to go for a STOBAR/CATOBAR design. I dont see the point in STOVL if you have the ability for CATOBAR. You can allways have additional STOVL aircraft in RAF service say that you can puddle jump out there. But your going to build a big enough ship that has the capability for cat's and still use STOVL??? i dont get it!



Sounds like a much better idea.

but if you go STOVL you can still use the invinsable class, or ocean [for a limited period of time] if you don't want to use the the CVFs it effectively doubles the amount of hulls you can use.

the CV22 osprey AEW if fitted with an advanced radar the difference shouldn't to large.

 

[swerve]

... and i'm not too sure how well Sea King AEW stacks up to E2....

Badly. Can't carry a radar of the same power, much worse time on station, operating altitude & transit time to station. Limitations of the platform. Which is why, if the RN insists on STOVL (& I do see the advantages, but also the disadvantages), I wish they'd go for a hybrid configuration, with ski-jump, but also a catapult on the angled deck & arrester gear. It's been proposed, but seems they aren't interested.

 

[StingrayOZ]

CATOBAR is expensive, how much did france pay for its catapults? 300 million odd or something silly? Where is the steam comming from on a diesel ship? How much can be produced? Lower sortie rate there. Big point of failure. How much for steam generators, servicing etc over the life of the equipment..

F-35B isn't much less capable, slightly shorter range, slightly lighter payload, but other wise very simular. They will make excellent carrier planes. For what $10 million more?

With only two carriers, UK would want to keep something alive and flexable, Ocean or one of the invici's will be around for a while yet as it could act as a temporary carrier under extremes.

Look how much trouble they are having get this preposal through, imagine if 600+ million was tacked on. No way. Atleast this way in 15-20 year it can be fitted and both types of aircraft used.

 

[alexsa]

Badly. Can't carry a radar of the same power, much worse time on station, operating altitude & transit time to station. Limitations of the platform. Which is why, if the RN insists on STOVL (& I do see the advantages, but also the disadvantages), I wish they'd go for a hybrid configuration, with ski-jump, but also a catapult on the angled deck & arrester gear. It's been proposed, but seems they aren't interested.

Don't forget there is a EH101 Merlin version in the works as an option and it has a much greater uplift capacity than the Seaking adn will be a much more capable platform. However, its flight envelope will be less than a tilt rotor.

Beedle has a nice summary

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

 

[contedicavour]

Don't forget there is a EH101 Merlin version in the works as an option and it has a much greater uplift capacity than the Seaking adn will be a much more capable platform. However, its flight envelope will be less than a tilt rotor.

Beedle has a nice summary

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

Actually we have 4 EH-101 AEW in service in the Italian Navy, although from what I've understood the future British variant would be equipped differently.

In the past STOVL was a second-best alternative to supersonic CTOL aircrafts. When we'll have the F35B the difference between STOVL and CTOL aircrafts will be reduced to the minimum (as said before, minor payload differences). All of the advantages of STOVL with almost no disadvantages left, why even bother with catapults anymore unless you have a 100,000 tonne CVN ...

cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

All of the advantages of STOVL with almost no disadvantages left, why even bother with catapults anymore unless you have a 100,000 tonne CVN ...

cheers

I don't think its that easy to argue. CATOBAR vs STOBAR results in some substantial differences in doctrine (eg sortie issues, form up issues, squadron cohesion form up issues, fuel usage issues, load out issues, time to target issues etc.....)

 

[contedicavour]

I don't think its that easy to argue. CATOBAR vs STOBAR results in some substantial differences in doctrine (eg sortie issues, form up issues, squadron cohesion form up issues, fuel usage issues, load out issues, time to target issues etc.....)

You are right I'm oversimplifying. In my point of view, for a navy that doesn't need more than half a dozen Harriers/F35s in the air simultaneously STOBAR is more than enough since you can get all of them in the air in a few minutes. Also, for a navy who primarily relies on its Harriers for air to air missions, payload limits are less important.
For a navy who uses its jets for long distance strike missions I understand it makes sense to maximise payload and fuel capacity and to get as many jets in the air simultaneously as possible via several catapults (while there is only logically 1 ski jump on STOVL carriers).
Moving from Harriers to F35Bs will anyway reduce the gap that exists today between AV8B+ equipped CVs and F18E/F equipped ones.

cheers

 

[riksavage]

The UK’s continued love of STOVL goes back to the Falklands and requirement for a versatile aircraft not restricted to high-quality landing zones.

In the event one of the new Carriers is damaged whilst supporting an amphibious operation, the onboard STOVL fleet can be offloaded and distributed around the accompanying fleet (assuming at least two Bay-class RFA would be in the flotilla), Plus the aviation support ship ARGUS can accommodate and repair STOVL’s whilst in theatre. Plus spare planes can be carried in modified container ships and cross-decked to the primary Carrier to replace damaged or destroyed aircraft over a protected time-frame.

If we had another Falklands scenario you could send a single carrier and accompanying container vessel with additional STOVL air-frames as back-up. As long as you have the ability to facilitate vertical take-off you could theoretically cross-deck with minimal fuel.

For the UK the advantages of operating STOVL outway the dissadvantages.

 

[overlander]

so it seems that more delays with the cvf order will happens, the never ending story, will see us some day the approval of the carriers, because now they say that final approval will delay until late this year.

 

[type45]

Hey guys just a thought here. How hard would it be to make Ocean capable of supporting Harriers or JSF. She can carry them already and is slightly bigger than the invincibles so would it be easy to do if wanted?

 

[harryriedl]

from what i heard the major problem is the lack of AV gas and bunkerage points in the deck layout to store gasoline an other point is that it lacks safe storage for a large amount of bombs.

of corse as a tempory deck for harrers and the JSF it perfect just don't expect it to cope with a 6months cruse with a airwing or two of harriers or JSF.
in a fictictious falklands senario it could be converted quickly as secondery deck and oprate Harriers as an axillillery aircraft carrier. It would be missing the point to use it as a carrier unless you were despret and you would be useing it as an LPH which it was desigined to to.

 

[harryriedl]

HMS Astute is lanched today

Royal Navy’s biggest and strongest submarine launches in Barrow

8 Jun 07

The Royal Navy’s newest super-submarine, Astute, was launched today, 8 June 2007, by HRH The Duchess of Cornwall at the BAE Systems shipyard in Barrow in Furness, Cumbria.

Astute is the first nuclear submarine to be launched in the UK for almost a decade. She has been built in the UK using the latest and most advanced naval engineering techniques. Construction has been described as more complex than that of the space shuttle.

Far bigger and more potent than the current class of attack submarines, this super stealthy vessel is almost 100m long, and weighs 7,400 tonnes. She will never need to be refuelled and her advanced on-board life support systems mean she can circumnavigate the globe without needing to surface.
Astute's first Commanding Officer, Commander Mike Walliker, believes the size of Astute will not present too many difficulties:
"She is about 2000 tonnes in displacement greater than a normal submarine but she is about half the size of the Vanguard Class submarines so we’re very used to operating submarines of this size. Submariners are all trained to the same high level, whatever boat we’re operating and the operation of a boat is broadly the same."
Astute is using a new optronics system which means she is not fitted with the traditional periscope. Commander Walliker does see this as a challenge:
"Not having a periscope will be the biggest challenge for me. We’re taking a submarine to sea for the first time with the optronics system and this is a new and unproven capability, but when I say unproven, I mean unproven to the Royal Navy at sea, but it is proven to other navies and so I’m not envisioning problems, but it is a challenge."

 

[contedicavour]

from what i heard the major problem is the lack of AV gas and bunkerage points in the deck layout to store gasoline an other point is that it lacks safe storage for a large amount of bombs.

of corse as a tempory deck for harrers and the JSF it perfect just don't expect it to cope with a 6months cruse with a airwing or two of harriers or JSF.
in a fictictious falklands senario it could be converted quickly as secondery deck and oprate Harriers as an axillillery aircraft carrier. It would be missing the point to use it as a carrier unless you were despret and you would be useing it as an LPH which it was desigined to to.

All of this is correct. Still, the Ocean is the size of an Invicible and if the RN added a sky jump (which wouldn't require months of shipyard work) then the RN would have a good backup for the CVFs.

cheers

 

[Tasman]

All of this is correct. Still, the Ocean is the size of an Invicible and if the RN added a sky jump (which wouldn't require months of shipyard work) then the RN would have a good backup for the CVFs.

cheers

I think one of the real advantages of VSTOL fighters is that it enables amphibious ships to act as spare decks for the big carriers in emergencies or in surge situations, much like some of the escort carriers were used in WW2. When the carriers Implacable and Indefatigable, with their double storied hangars, joined the British Pacific Fleet in 1945 it was not uncommon for each to be accompanied by an escort carrier which acted as a spare deck for the large airgroups (by RN standards) carried by these two ships. Aircraft could land on the CVEs, be refuelled, rearmed and rejoin the fight, thus easing the burden on the crowded decks of the fleet carriers. In the event of a fleet carrier being hit by a kamikaze, which could cause even the armoured deck British carriers to cease flying for a while, aircraft that were airborne could be recovered using the 'spare deck'. These carriers usually carried only a handful of aircraft of their own.

In the case of Ocean, if she is not required for amphibious operations she could accompany an Invincible (or later a CVF). In such an operation she could carry some of an expanded airgroup, say 4-6 Harriers/F-35s and 4-6 EH101 Merlins, freeing up space on the carrier. She would only need to provide the most basic maintenance, along with emergency refuelling and re-arming. General maintenance, refuelling and rearming would take place on the carrier. She would only need to carry sufficient ordinance and fuel for emergency situations. Even with out a skijump she could still operate helos and could recover Harriers/F-35s in an emergency.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

HMS Astute is lanched today

Royal Navy’s biggest and strongest submarine launches in Barrow

8 Jun 07

The Royal Navy’s newest super-submarine, Astute, was launched today, 8 June 2007, by HRH The Duchess of Cornwall at the BAE Systems shipyard in Barrow in Furness, Cumbria.

Congrats to our British friends. Boy, thats a lot of boat with a really good weapons load.http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/

 

[StingrayOZ]

Are the F-35 compatable with HMS Ocean?

I think without the jump it would be a real struggle. Are the decks/lifts strong enough to carry and land the conciderably heavier F-35?

Given the few number of destroyers t-45 the uk might have. I think Ocean would be initally deployed with a CVF. Given that after the inital airstrikes, deploying troops, using helicopters etc is a natural part of securing an area.

Nice sub, I wish Australia would get a couple. Perhaps on a lease arrangement?