Well you’re much better off actually trying to pick it apart rather than just making a pointless comment. But be fairly warned: rate means frequency which is a different numerical concept than net. And I’ve been onboard 1 Invincible, 2 Wasps and 2 Supercarriers and I wasn’t just there to sight see.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
kev 99
Member
Oh come off it look at the huge RAF contracts that had been awarded through this and the previous decades, is the RN not entitled to think that it's 'flagship' (pardun the pun) project is safe when the RAF's £20bn fighter contract* plus new tankers are all but guaranteed.
*Even though it turns out that the MOD and other countries appear to have found a loophole when the economies have turned sour.
Yes, I get the point. There is a difference between Velocity/frequency and gross number of aircraft.
For all the ships you have been on you have not been on either a Juan Carlos class or a Queen Elizabeth class - the two you are making a comparison on. Indeed, there are very few (if any) who know what the final layout of a QE will be.
Given this, it is irrelevant how many ships you have seen/studied/visited - you cannot make the comparison and claim any degree of accuracy.
You are here to slate the RN - and it is fair to say that there is some justification for this! However some of the comments/comparisons you have made are ridiculous! Especially for a pro!
This may come as a stunning surprise to you but the differences between one STOVL carrier class and another are actually very few. They both tend to have a long flat piece of metal with – more often than not – a ramp at the end. Down this flat but often curved at the end piece of metal aircraft run and then takeoff into the air.
The capacity for differences in this operation are fundamentally limited by the laws of aeronautics and physics. To state as you do that I can’t make a call on the capabilities of these ships is outrageously blinkered and unrelated to all entire history of human analytical ability.
In short what I’ve said in the last two paras is: you have no bloody idea and no right to claim I don’t.
Anyone with a passing experience with carrier operations will know that on a STOVL carrier sortie rate is only limited by the flight decks crew to spot aircraft on the takeoff tram line. As I mentioned above there are some subtle differences between a Juan Carlos I class LHD and a Queen Elizabeth class CVA but there is no reason why these features (deck edge elevator, jet blast deflectors) could not be incorporated into a LHD. Certainly the Wasp class LHD is no deficient in launch rate capability compared to a Queen Elizabeth class CVA. The only way to make a significant change would be to add a second tram line to enable staggered launches before re-spotting. The Queen Elizabeth class CVA as contracted does not have two tram lines.
That is total unjustified crap. I am here providing reasonable commentary on the effect of the SDR on the RN. I know what I’m talking about. If you don’t understand my comments that’s your problem not mine.
I think we have to assume that switching from STOVL F35B to F35C has been de-risked and the platform design will be altered to match the changes. The fact that the QE design forms the basis for PA2 strengthens this fact.
So we will have to wait and see what the predicated sortie rates are as more information becomes available in the public domain. I suspect the Carrier Alliance will very shortly release new images/models of the revised design. If the ramp goes, then we will IMHO see the catapult layout change allowing for staggered launches. The vessel needs at least two, thus having redundancy built-in to cater for cat down-time.
So we will have to wait and see what the predicated sortie rates are as more information becomes available in the public domain. I suspect the Carrier Alliance will very shortly release new images/models of the revised design. If the ramp goes, then we will IMHO see the catapult layout change allowing for staggered launches. The vessel needs at least two, thus having redundancy built-in to cater for cat down-time.
The trouble is the RAF has consistently acted in its own interests for the past 90 years and is much better at managing its own PR. The irony of it is that in 1916-17 Trenchard opposed the creation of an independent air force, on the grounds it would distract from the core role of airpower to support the Army and Navy.
In the US in the late 40s he was hailed as a messiah in some quarter. Its easy to forget the Korean War was the Falklands for the USN. They had just had the America class super carriers cancelled; it was the reality that there would be conventional wars in areas that land based air forces cannot get to, that provided funding for the Forrestals the foundations of the modern USN.
The SDSR is very clear on that. For logistical & operational reasons, we will only buy one variant. Since the carriers need F-35C, that's what it has to be. The RAF will fly F-35C, or nothing.
You might have a point, if it was true that Spain & Italy had sought to replace carriers with LHDs. In fact, Italy has built a carrier with a secondary role as an amphibious transport (not an LHD - no dock), & Spain is completing the replacement of four old ex-US amphibious ships with two LPDs & an LHD, the last of which has a secondary role as an auxiliary carrier to provide cover for the main carrier when it's in refit or repair.
Both still operate their old carriers, & will do for some time. They are not being replaced by the new ships. Spain wants to replace Principe de Asturias with another dedicated carrier, & Italy wants a STOVL-capable LHA or LHD to operate alongside Cavour, & act as an auxiliary carrier on the lines of Juan Carlos 1.
The Royal Navy disagrees. Its case for large STOVL carriers was based largely on higher sustained sortie rates. Since the RN has been carrying out such operations for a very ling time, I trust its judgement on these matters.
Hopefully this multiqote works....
Remember, the QE are no longer STOVL. Irrelevent.
p.s. to generalise the capability/capacity of ships by their shape (for want of a better word) is quite funny.
However the QE are no longer STOVL so this comment is Irrelevant.
They almost certainly could be fitted to a Juan Carlos. But it depends on the design, which may make it prohibitively expensive. Your comments can only be speculative.
You have no idea of the launch/recovery cycle of a CTOL QE class. You may be able to guess, but the variables involved (e.g. number of cats, deck storage and preparation space, can launches occur at the same time as recovery) would be significant to the extent that it would be a guess rather than an educated guess.
I think the Wasp (and Juan Carlos) is a very capable ship, but it is not a carrier. It cannot launch and recover its fixed wing complement simultaneously. What's the point of having a high launch rate and a low recovery rate?
This is of course irrelevant as the QE is no longer a STOVL ship...
Of course this is irrelevent now.
Quite why you are choosing to ignore the fact that the QE class will be CTOL is beyond me.
Yes, the RN has taken a kicking, but what little kit they are getting is of a very high quality and capability. To say that a 70,000t ship, that is optimised for carrying 40+ aircraft (and launching and recovering them at a significant velocity) has a comparable aerial punch to something that is in effect a slightly larger Invincible class (which also carries troops and their kit) is bizarre, implausible and inaccurate. Furthermore, you have no basis upon which to make those claims.
That looks suspiciously like a rant to me...
Remember, the QE are no longer STOVL. Irrelevent.
p.s. to generalise the capability/capacity of ships by their shape (for want of a better word) is quite funny.
Well spotted - I always wondered what those people in the pretty coloured jackets were doing... Remember it also depends on the equiplment the crew have, which varies from ship to ship.
However the QE are no longer STOVL so this comment is Irrelevant.
Subtle - like one is STOVL and the other is CTOVL. Now I am no "pro" but I would say that is a rather fundamental difference. Wouldn't you?
They almost certainly could be fitted to a Juan Carlos. But it depends on the design, which may make it prohibitively expensive. Your comments can only be speculative.
How can you claim this!
You have no idea of the launch/recovery cycle of a CTOL QE class. You may be able to guess, but the variables involved (e.g. number of cats, deck storage and preparation space, can launches occur at the same time as recovery) would be significant to the extent that it would be a guess rather than an educated guess.
I think the Wasp (and Juan Carlos) is a very capable ship, but it is not a carrier. It cannot launch and recover its fixed wing complement simultaneously. What's the point of having a high launch rate and a low recovery rate?
This is of course irrelevant as the QE is no longer a STOVL ship...
Notwithstanding the change in design, it did have two runways. Long and short so two aircraft could be prepared etc. at the same time and landing could occur to the side of them.
Of course this is irrelevent now.
True to an extent, but see my previous comment re long/short runways. In any event the design has changed so (again) your comment is Irrelevant.
I get exactly the points you are trying to get across. However, they are either irrelevant, speculation or wrong.
Quite why you are choosing to ignore the fact that the QE class will be CTOL is beyond me.
Yes, the RN has taken a kicking, but what little kit they are getting is of a very high quality and capability. To say that a 70,000t ship, that is optimised for carrying 40+ aircraft (and launching and recovering them at a significant velocity) has a comparable aerial punch to something that is in effect a slightly larger Invincible class (which also carries troops and their kit) is bizarre, implausible and inaccurate. Furthermore, you have no basis upon which to make those claims.
One doesn’t have to wait at. No CTOL carrier can match a STOVL carrier for sortie rates because the launch process is far more complex and the necessity of cyclic operations mandates a significant reduction in available time for launching. Even with two catapults the Queen Elizabeth will not be able to launch 18 F-35Cs in the time it takes to launch 36 F-35Bs with a ramp. And it will only be able to launch 18 at a time even with 36 embarked because of the need to be cyclic. Then of course there all the other downsides in the equation for CTOL which are too numerous to mention again right now.
Completely agree, this is the most important thing, to learn from these mistakes and how they happened, so it doesn’t happen again. It doesn't matter that the RAF got away with wasting more on their pet projects; this does not justify the RN's actions.
Some learning is with hindsight, but as you rightly point out most of this was the bleeding obvious. They have been playing poker raising the stakes with no plan B.
The point is the T26 must not be allowed to go the same way, the impact of another train out of control, just at the time when the Carrier(s) are coming into service could be fatal.
Controls need to be put in place, just a few ideas I am sure we could all come up with more:
Caps on cost overruns need to be put into every contract; a rise in say 25%, triggers an automatic no cost right to cancel the project.
Regular reviews should be taken to see if the project is still relevant/value for money
For failing projects a recover plan should be put in place to bring back into budget or a revised budget agreed. This should include Service Chiefs, MOD and the Treasury
A proper industrial plan should be agreed to include sustainable construction over the product lifecycle.
Exports should always be considered at the begining not when complete or near complete, to increase production runs: reducing unit cost to the RN, helping to sustain industrial capability and creating employment (the RN need to play this card harder, it must be come more relevant to the UK public)
Last edited:
Sustained rates means net sorties. A bigger ship carries more fuel and ammo so can fly more net rates. This entire conversation to date has been in relation to rate of sorties because of the wrong claim that the QE CVA in the contracted configuration would be able to launch more faster than a smaller ship.
You just waded into a conversation without bothering to find out what it was about? We were discussing the sortie rate of the QE as originally planned (as a STOVL) ship and smaller LHD type STOVL carriers.
So do the honourable thing and delete your posts, apologise to everyone and maybe come back and say something about what we are actually talking about.
Last edited:
Oh good, the name-calling is going to start again in this thread, is it? For what, the third time in a week? Everyone keep their little jibes to themselves and bloody well get along or the thread gets locked, is that simple enough?
That's a problematic statement. What is the sustained daily rate? USS Nimitz did 192 sorties a day for 4 days straight and this followed six days of ops where they put up 700 sorties. This was not exactly done at extended range and the generally accepted number for a Nimitz class is around 140 with 160 being mentioned for the Fords.
It's also problematic in that the CTOL aircraft carry more fuel and weapons farther. So how many F-35B sorties equal an F-35C sortie? How many ASaC.7 sorties are needed to mirror an E-2 sortie?
Moreover, at some point near term CTOL carriers will be carrying long endurance fighter sized UCAS. Indeed it's not been talked about but it's exactly these type of capabilities that may have tipped the decision in favor of CTOL.
It's also problematic in that the CTOL aircraft carry more fuel and weapons farther. So how many F-35B sorties equal an F-35C sortie? How many ASaC.7 sorties are needed to mirror an E-2 sortie?
Moreover, at some point near term CTOL carriers will be carrying long endurance fighter sized UCAS. Indeed it's not been talked about but it's exactly these type of capabilities that may have tipped the decision in favor of CTOL.
HMS ARK ROYAL R07 on eBay (end time 31-Oct-10 12:38:14 GMT)
I thought I'd post the link above.
...I didn't do to start an arguement,
...I didn't do it because the Questions an Answers made me chuckle just once or twice.
I did it because while people are discussing how THEY see the Navy acting / reacting to the SDSR, or how they see other nations in comparrison to my own, or which equipment should be sold off, even though it's not for sale; the point is being missed time & again.
I've not seen many comments on the blogs I scan every day, but the closest I've seen to how things actually are & the way we should react, are here...
Information Dissemination: Strategic Defense and Security Review Highlights
SA
I thought I'd post the link above.
...I didn't do to start an arguement,
...I didn't do it because the Questions an Answers made me chuckle just once or twice.
I did it because while people are discussing how THEY see the Navy acting / reacting to the SDSR, or how they see other nations in comparrison to my own, or which equipment should be sold off, even though it's not for sale; the point is being missed time & again.
I've not seen many comments on the blogs I scan every day, but the closest I've seen to how things actually are & the way we should react, are here...
Information Dissemination: Strategic Defense and Security Review Highlights
SA
OK I can understand the concerns post Falklands, but in reality 10 years on from the War the RN was in much better shape with properly developed and widespread deployment of Sea Dart/Wolf. The FA2 with BVR missiles was a completely different proposition to the FRS1. To replace these 1 for 1 with F35 or a moderate increase was not unreasonable.
To be honest I would have preferred 3 x 45-50,000t ships more like the LHA-6 than Wasp built one after the other over c25 years. A similar number of LSD/LPD capable of carrying a modest number of helicopter (c6) in a deck level hanger.
You say the RN felt a need for a platform capable of operating 30 fixed wing aircraft, how did that become a 65,000t ships (likely to rise, if completed). This is near a Midway Class carrier, ie c70 aircraft.
Ironically the role now proposed for the CVFs is almost identical to the LHA-6 but with catapults.
Another overriding factor concerning the switch form F35B to C is bang for buck capability. The way things are going the F35B will end up being the most expensive of the three by some margin, yet have the shortest range and load carrying ability. It's also the most complex to maintain and continues to have the most problems.
We must also take into consideration F35C sqn's will be split between RAF and FAA with the former spending more time flying from land than sea no doubt providing similar coverage to what the GR9's once provided in A-Stan. Now assuming the runways are up to scratch the F35C used from a land based airstrip brings a substantial increase in range and weapons load over the B version. As we know the RAF are desperate for a manned GR4 replacement, the RN could play a blinder and say: 'look lads we currently operate the F35C under JLF today, forget buying F35A's, stick with more of what we've got and increase our/your land/sea based deep strike options'. The flyaway cost of F35C must be similar to the F35A I would have thought?
With Turanis progressing nicely coupled with the variable launch speeds of EMAL/EMCAT, cat and trap has to be the way to go from day one, there's simply too much growth potential. In 20-30 yeas time the pendulum will have swung to super and subsonic UCAV's, not having the foresight to build in launch technology now would be a criminal error, so sacrifice sortie rates for platform versatility. One things for sure the cyclic rate of EMAL/EMCAT is far, far greater than that of steam catapults, so time between launch's should decrease impacting sortie launch (if not recovery) times.
We must also take into consideration F35C sqn's will be split between RAF and FAA with the former spending more time flying from land than sea no doubt providing similar coverage to what the GR9's once provided in A-Stan. Now assuming the runways are up to scratch the F35C used from a land based airstrip brings a substantial increase in range and weapons load over the B version. As we know the RAF are desperate for a manned GR4 replacement, the RN could play a blinder and say: 'look lads we currently operate the F35C under JLF today, forget buying F35A's, stick with more of what we've got and increase our/your land/sea based deep strike options'. The flyaway cost of F35C must be similar to the F35A I would have thought?
With Turanis progressing nicely coupled with the variable launch speeds of EMAL/EMCAT, cat and trap has to be the way to go from day one, there's simply too much growth potential. In 20-30 yeas time the pendulum will have swung to super and subsonic UCAV's, not having the foresight to build in launch technology now would be a criminal error, so sacrifice sortie rates for platform versatility. One things for sure the cyclic rate of EMAL/EMCAT is far, far greater than that of steam catapults, so time between launch's should decrease impacting sortie launch (if not recovery) times.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
CV also has limit to aviation fuel and munitions carried before resupply is required.
How many missions involve carrier combat radius beyond 500nm which is the internal fuel limit of the F-35B?
F-35B does not suffer weight penalty from munitions carriage compared to F-35C as take off weight is approx similar once fully loaded with fuel (as F-35C carries more fuel). Hence there are doubts about actual range advantage in operational circumstance.
Beyond 500nm, F-35B can use tanks. After 600-700nm, both F-35B and C needs air tanker top-up. So the operational advantage of the -C is only bet 500-600nm. What targets are so critical that such missions at that range must be conducted only via internal fuel carriage only? Operational obfuscation.
How many missions uses 2000lb bombs esp with the collateral damage issue nowadays.
F-35B can carry 2,000lb bombs externally so its only first day strike scenarios where stealth is needed. What anti-ship missiles can fit internally? Red herring and no advantage with the -C.
F-35B design requirement is for 3 sustained sortie rates and 4 surge rates per a/c. F-35C is for 2 and 3 respectively. Actual demo showed F-35B hitting 6.5 for surge.
The allied ops again is another red herring. F-35C is only used by US navy and they got enough carriers to house those without having to operate off CVF. So do the French with their Rafale (and how many combined combat carrier operations have the French actually participated in?).
In fact operating only the -C means Royal Navy will never be able to operate off USMC LHDs or other STOVL platforms (eg NATO allies Juan Carlos, Cavour etc) and RN will be restricted to far fewer platforms. It would have allowed RN pilots more carrier opportunities when the RN carrier is in the dock as compared to US navy. So much for nato joint ops....
Nimitz carries more a/c than the QE. The more a/c the more sorties.
CV also has limit to aviation fuel and munitions carried before resupply is required.
As AG mentioned, more reserve fuel needed for CTOL due to overshot on landing risk. With vertical landing/SRVL, lower fuel reserve needed.
How many missions involve carrier combat radius beyond 500nm which is the internal fuel limit of the F-35B?
F-35B does not suffer weight penalty from munitions carriage compared to F-35C as take off weight is approx similar once fully loaded with fuel (as F-35C carries more fuel). Hence there are doubts about actual range advantage in operational circumstance.
Beyond 500nm, F-35B can use tanks. After 600-700nm, both F-35B and C needs air tanker top-up. So the operational advantage of the -C is only bet 500-600nm. What targets are so critical that such missions at that range must be conducted only via internal fuel carriage only? Operational obfuscation.
How many missions uses 2000lb bombs esp with the collateral damage issue nowadays.
F-35B can carry 2,000lb bombs externally so its only first day strike scenarios where stealth is needed. What anti-ship missiles can fit internally? Red herring and no advantage with the -C.
F-35B design requirement is for 3 sustained sortie rates and 4 surge rates per a/c. F-35C is for 2 and 3 respectively. Actual demo showed F-35B hitting 6.5 for surge.
The allied ops again is another red herring. F-35C is only used by US navy and they got enough carriers to house those without having to operate off CVF. So do the French with their Rafale (and how many combined combat carrier operations have the French actually participated in?).
In fact operating only the -C means Royal Navy will never be able to operate off USMC LHDs or other STOVL platforms (eg NATO allies Juan Carlos, Cavour etc) and RN will be restricted to far fewer platforms. It would have allowed RN pilots more carrier opportunities when the RN carrier is in the dock as compared to US navy. So much for nato joint ops....
The problem with this argument is historically the UK has only been on high-tempo combat operations with one NATO ally in the last 20 years, and that's the USA - GWI, II & A-Stan. Whilst the RN may train with the likes of Italy and Spain, from a war-fighting and joint operability perspective the US, followed by France represent the two primary maritime partners today and in the near future. Also the UK/France will end up jointly developing maritime amd land based medium/ large UCAV's, which need to be compatable with one others carriers and more than likely require assisted launch (steam or EMCAT).weasel1962 said:
The French represent the only other European country capable of conducting unilateral operations, so as budgets continue to tighten the French (followed by the Dutch) will remain the UK's primary maritime European partner with regard to expeditionary warfare. Being able to cross-deck F35C/Rafi will become more and more important. Also whilst the RN can't operate off Spanish & Italian STOVL platforms, there's no reason to stop them operating off a QE class with or without ski-ramp.
Whilst continuing with F35B would have given access to European and USMC STOVL platforms, it does not compare to what are considered today as being the tier one asset in a Navies arsenal - that being the conventional strike carrier. With the FAA now firmly embedded with the USN flying SH, they can jointly develop doctrine as the F35C's come on-line in a training environment that cannot be duplicated anywhere in Europe.
Critically having a strike carrier will allow the UK to act as Flag on NATO operations, hosting both US & French fixed wing and Hawkeye.
Last edited by a moderator: