The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Musashi_kenshin]

Aren't they planned to have an electric drive, like Type 45? I'm profoundly ignorant on these matters, but my first thought is that looks ideal if an electromagnetic launch system is eventually fitted.

I think that's rather the point. They won't have any means of producing steam so EMALS is the only realistic way to go. But they can't plan to finish the carriers using that as the technology isn't mature enough yet.

 

[TimmyC]

Ahhh good good, I've been waiting for people's Sunday postings.

How do people view the reasoning behind the UK selecting the F-35B variant of the Lightning II? Do people see that this selection is because like the USMC the RN has a unique history of STOVL? Or are there people with the view that a STOVL configuration carrier has been selected as this is the cheapest design and support option compared to the likes of STOBAR / CTOL? Do many consider this to be a justified approach considering the F35B has the shortest range and lowest payload due to the different engine?

1 or 2 questions there, just trying to get an consensus of opinion of readers in this forum.
One area of concern to myself is, not trying to belittle the projects many intelligent designers, is the area of AEW aircraft. I suspect it's purely financial in that they don't have any money left but this area seems to be "we'll address this problem when we get to it and not before more funding is available."
Considering the vast expense of the CVF program where the attached aircraft's 25 year lifespan far outstrip the costs of the ships themselves, I can't help but wonder if the whole STOVL package as a whole isn't just a little bit cheapskate in regards to overall effectiveness such as helicopter mounted AEW.
Having said all that I've always been happy with the Invincibles. It's nearly 2008 and the first QE class to due to touch water I believe now in 2015. Not too far away, still can't believe we're getting them. Hope I live to see the day.
Is there any more news on Meteor being downsized for the internal weapon bay, or is shrinking it just me dreaming. Is it dependent on the US selecting it over next generation AMRAAM or will the USN stay with their own home produced missiles due to the expected volume of the market?
Does any well informed soul have any knowledge if carrier borne F35B will be able to operate / land safely with Storm Shadow for example?

No info, just lots of questions
Answers on a postcard, 1st prize is a mini metro..

 

[harryriedl]

Ahhh good good, I've been waiting for people's Sunday postings.

How do people view the reasoning behind the UK selecting the F-35B variant of the Lightning II? Do people see that this selection is because like the USMC the RN has a unique history of STOVL? Or are there people with the view that a STOVL configuration carrier has been selected as this is the cheapest design and support option compared to the likes of STOBAR / CTOL? Do many consider this to be a justified approach considering the F35B has the shortest range and lowest payload due to the different engine?

1 or 2 questions there, just trying to get an consensus of opinion of readers in this forum.
One area of concern to myself is, not trying to belittle the projects many intelligent designers, is the area of AEW aircraft. I suspect it's purely financial in that they don't have any money left but this area seems to be "we'll address this problem when we get to it and not before more funding is available."
Considering the vast expense of the CVF program where the attached aircraft's 25 year lifespan far outstrip the costs of the ships themselves, I can't help but wonder if the whole STOVL package as a whole isn't just a little bit cheapskate in regards to overall effectiveness such as helicopter mounted AEW.
Having said all that I've always been happy with the Invincibles. It's nearly 2008 and the first QE class to due to touch water I believe now in 2015. Not too far away, still can't believe we're getting them. Hope I live to see the day.
Is there any more news on Meteor being downsized for the internal weapon bay, or is shrinking it just me dreaming. Is it dependent on the US selecting it over next generation AMRAAM or will the USN stay with their own home produced missiles due to the expected volume of the market?
Does any well informed soul have any knowledge if carrier borne F35B will be able to operate / land safely with Storm Shadow for example?

No info, just lots of questions
Answers on a postcard, 1st prize is a mini metro..

well their are many resons for the choise of the F35B one of the most useful is that they can be used on other ships other than the QEs they can take stormshadow easliy[harriers have been tested with them] METEOR has been approved for the internal bays.

as far as i know the frist QE will still be due for 2014

short of time so can't ansewer in any great detail

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

How do people view the reasoning behind the UK selecting the F-35B variant of the Lightning II?

You could do with reading my last post to get at least one reason.

I can't help but wonder if the whole STOVL package as a whole isn't just a little bit cheapskate in regards to overall effectiveness such as helicopter mounted AEW.

So you would have prefered it if the project had been killed off because of the cost of a conventional-config carrier? I see it the other way around. Given how long the carriers will be in service, it's better to be able to have the choice of changing them once EMALS is available than not have a carrier at all.

Not too far away, still can't believe we're getting them.

Start accepting it.

Does any well informed soul have any knowledge if carrier borne F35B will be able to operate / land safely with Storm Shadow for example?

Haven't heard any reason why not.

No info, just lots of questions

Tried researching them yourself? Seriously, trying to ambush people while they're visiting a forum is not on. Engage people in conversation via private chat, etc.

 

[neil]

i thought the point of a forum was to state ones opinion and exchange ideas and views.. how do you do that without asking questions? no one forces anyone to answer.. if you dont want to.. then dont..

i think there are a number of reasons that the uk chose the B model JSF.. to continue the versatility of the harrier(as the present deployment to kandahar illustrates) might be the main one..

having the capability to deploy fighters where others cant is priceless.. i know the base is now able to handle normal traffic.. however when the us marine harriers first deployed, followed by the brits, it wasnt..

plus F35B.. even though less capable than F35C (as far as payload, range goes).. is still more capable than what harrier offers at the moment..

 

[Super Nimrod]

Re the steam catapults I presume that the French CVF's will have a large steam plant somewhere on board, maybe using waste exhaust heat from the main turbines although I doubt that would generate enough steam alone. Has anyone seen what they have planned ?

 

[TimmyC]

Ahhh good good, I've been waiting for people's Sunday postings.

How do people view the reasoning behind the UK selecting the F-35B variant of the Lightning II? Do people see that this selection is because like the USMC the RN has a unique history of STOVL? Or are there people with the view that a STOVL configuration carrier has been selected as this is the cheapest design and support option compared to the likes of STOBAR / CTOL? Do many consider this to be a justified approach considering the F35B has the shortest range and lowest payload due to the different engine?

1 or 2 questions there, just trying to get an consensus of opinion of readers in this forum.
One area of concern to myself is, not trying to belittle the projects many intelligent designers, is the area of AEW aircraft. I suspect it's purely financial in that they don't have any money left but this area seems to be "we'll address this problem when we get to it and not before more funding is available."
Considering the vast expense of the CVF program where the attached aircraft's 25 year lifespan far outstrip the costs of the ships themselves, I can't help but wonder if the whole STOVL package as a whole isn't just a little bit cheapskate in regards to overall effectiveness such as helicopter mounted AEW.
Having said all that I've always been happy with the Invincibles. It's nearly 2008 and the first QE class to due to touch water I believe now in 2015. Not too far away, still can't believe we're getting them. Hope I live to see the day.
Is there any more news on Meteor being downsized for the internal weapon bay, or is shrinking it just me dreaming. Is it dependent on the US selecting it over next generation AMRAAM or will the USN stay with their own home produced missiles due to the expected volume of the market?
Does any well informed soul have any knowledge if carrier borne F35B will be able to operate / land safely with Storm Shadow for example?

No info, just lots of questions
Answers on a postcard, 1st prize is a mini metro..

Thanks Harryreidl for the reply.

Any other people care to join in this debate on this public forum?
(Obnoxious people aside, my post was within the rules of this forum.)

 

[harryriedl]

Re the steam catapults I presume that the French CVF's will have a large steam plant somewhere on board, maybe using waste exhaust heat from the main turbines although I doubt that would generate enough steam alone. Has anyone seen what they have planned ?

I can't think were the steam plant would go i would have thought the GT would produce anywhere near as much steam required and the exhausts trunk thought the islands and a plant in the islands wouldn't be great

also the biggest benefit of the F35 compared with the harriers are the full multi role and AESA so any F35B can do CAP and STRIKE Air Domanince which is a huge benefit for both FAA and RAF especially if the FAA get lions share of the F35B [as they believe that they will].

 

[Systems Adict]

Hate to burst your steam bubble chaps, but all current design indications are saying that CVF will be all electric, no steam to be had !:fly

The carriers will be STOL / STOVL, (with a ski-ramp), although there will be space allocated for an electric catapult

 

[TimmyC]

Hate to burst your steam bubble chaps, but all current design indications are saying that CVF will be all electric, no steam to be had !:fly

The carriers will be STOL / STOVL, (with a ski-ramp), although there will be space allocated for an electric catapult

If the French PA2 gets the green light although sharing some similarities is this not a largely different design to the UK CVF's? As they will be operating Raffales not F35B?

 

[swerve]

... the biggest benefit of the F35 compared with the harriers are the full multi role and AESA so any F35B can do CAP and STRIKE Air Domanince which is a huge benefit for both FAA and RAF especially if the FAA get lions share of the F35B [as they believe that they will].

The F-35B should also have a considerably greater payload (bloody well better, since it weighs twice as much!), greater range & a far smaller RCS & IR signature than a Harrier.

 

[swerve]

If the French PA2 gets the green light although sharing some similarities is this not a largely different design to the UK CVF's? As they will be operating Raffales not F35B?

Looks as if it'll have the same hull, same islands, same propulsion & much of the internal layout the same. The French have paid a lot of money for our detailed design work on that lot, & contributed to it themselves. It'd be pretty embarrassing for them if they went ahead & built something that didn't use it.

 

[TimmyC]

Just a question out of the blue regarding close air support missions, like have likely been seen daily in Helmand province; How many Apache Longbows could you buy for a single F-35B? I understand there's more to it than that and its not a fair question, but all the same?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

How many Apache Longbows could you buy for a single F-35B?

Well 67 Westland WAH-64 Apaches were ordered back in the 90s for just over £3 billion. Although I'm not sure if the exchange rate was as favourable then as it is now, that's still quite expensive - certainly no better than the current estimated cost of a F-35B.

In terms of more recent orders, Taiwan is planning to buy 30 AH-64Ds for about $2 billion - again about the current cost of a F-35B.

 

[TimmyC]

Looks as if it'll have the same hull, same islands, same propulsion & much of the internal layout the same. The French have paid a lot of money for our detailed design work on that lot, & contributed to it themselves. It'd be pretty embarrassing for them if they went ahead & built something that didn't use it.

To my limited knowledge the Charles de Gaulle is a CVN and as such can generate all the steam it needs for it's catapults from her nuclear pressure water reactors, how will the PA2 operate hers? Will they be able to design EMALS into her delivery date?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Will they be able to design EMALS into her delivery date?

If the French want PA2 to enter service on time, any delay to EMALS would make that impossible. That of course would require the Americans releasing it to the French at the first possible date.

 

[Miles]

Can JSF/JCA carry fuel pods to do air-to-air refuelling like the F18 (I believe)?

If not then this severly limits their use. If we end up buying or converting to the catapult version of the CVF then we should buy a few American Vikings before they are scrapped for the air to air refuelling role. And they can carry harpoon for extra flexibility.

 

[harryriedl]

The F-35B should also have a considerably greater payload (bloody well better, since it weighs twice as much!), greater range & a far smaller RCS & IR signature than a Harrier.

and its got the range of a Super Hornet

also i thought the PA2 was using the C13 Cats like on the Nimize

also any idea of the PA2 name Richelieu was though of as the most likely name

Buddy Buddy should be possible if the F35B serifed for those Jazzy 2000L pods on its external hard points and the pipping for hose and drogue fueling the F35B [all though to my information this isn't funded] range isn't at all bad and comparable to most fighters and has STOVL.

also even in the days of Ark Royal [the old one] we didn't use buddy buddy until we had the Buccaneers [i think so] and we didn't a particularly great air group then [of course it was better than the harriers it just wasn't a patch on the USN in the 1970s]

 

[swerve]

...
also i thought the PA2 was using the C13 Cats like on the Nimize

..

IIRC the French have signed an agreement for the supply of C13s for PA2.

 

[Seaforth]

also even in the days of Ark Royal [the old one] we didn't use buddy buddy until we had the Buccaneers [i think so] and we didn't a particularly great air group then [of course it was better than the harriers it just wasn't a patch on the USN in the 1970s]

Slightly off-topic...
The Royal Navy introduced Scimitar aircraft with buddy air-air refuelling when the first Buccaneers came into service.
The first Buccaneers' engines were underpowered, so couldn't be catapulted with full fuel and weapons load.
The Scimitars were assigned as an add-on flight to the Buccaneer squadron as I understand it, to top up the Buccaneers' fuel after they had taken off.
This was in the early 1960's.
Both the Scimitars and Buccaneers were big aircraft, and of course the RN fleet carriers were relatively small.
I heard that half of all Scimitars were lost to accidents...