The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Being a naval aircraft, it won't out dogfight air force fighters. On the other hand it will carry all of the newest BVR missiles the Harrier dreams of. So its an upgrade for the RN as a naval fighter. The key is seeing the enemy first, and it should easily win that contest being a stealth aircraft.

True, i wasn't expecting sublime things about its dogfighting but i suppose the BVR missiles does remove that need somewhat for say 98-99% of its combat air-to-air actions i would imagine.

Can't wait to have that aircraft in numbers on the deck of a QE, its going to be an amazing capability boost for the RN

NOTE: Heres a link some may enjoy, someone selling a Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7 (EVERETT AERO - HARRIER JUMP JET FOR SALE)

 

[swerve]

Being a naval aircraft, it won't out dogfight air force fighters. On the other hand it will carry all of the newest BVR missiles the Harrier dreams of. So its an upgrade for the RN as a naval fighter..

Sea Harrier carried AIM-120, as do current Spanish & Italian Harriers.

 

[RobWilliams]

Sea Harrier carried AIM-120, as do current Spanish & Italian Harriers.

True, but the F35 can and will mount the Meteor BVR missile (not in service yet however) which appears to have a greater operational range than the AIM-120, can't find any exact figures (except Wiki, which gives the AIM-120D an 'operational range' of 72km compared to the Meteor of 100+, i don't trust Wiki much on this issue as i can't verify them myself unless anyone else has links?) but that at least appears to be the general opinion

The Meteor missile also apparently has the

Largest No Escape Zone of any air-to-air weapon resulting in a long stand-off
range and high kill probability to ensure air superiority and pilot survivability;

thats taken directly from MDBAs website [1]

The Meteor will also be mounted on the F35C after a few design changes. There was a point where its future was undecided but this quote from DefenceIndustryDaily which was in turn a quote from Janes (the link died sadly, but its logical) sums it up quite well, MBDA seem confident it will be compatible also.

With the F-35 set to become as widespread in use as the F-16 multirole fighter, getting the Meteor, Storm Shadow cruise missile, Brimstone anti-armour missile and Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) integrated on the new aircraft is key to MBDA’s future prospects

[2]

All this being said however, i would be suprised if the Meteor could not be mounted on Harriers with less hassle than the F35 due to having external rather than internal weapon bays.

[1] http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/METEOR_background.pdf
[2] Meteor Missile Will Make Changes to Accommodate F-35

 

[1805]

True, i wasn't expecting sublime things about its dogfighting but i suppose the BVR missiles does remove that need somewhat for say 98-99% of its combat air-to-air actions i would imagine.

Can't wait to have that aircraft in numbers on the deck of a QE, its going to be an amazing capability boost for the RN

NOTE: Heres a link some may enjoy, someone selling a Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7 (EVERETT AERO - HARRIER JUMP JET FOR SALE)

I thought all the current GRs are going to the USMC. The FA2 if they are actually flyable and they could get export licences would be a great buy for the Thai navy.

 

[RobWilliams]

I thought all the current GRs are going to the USMC. The FA2 if they are actually flyable and they could get export licences would be a great buy for the Thai navy.

Thats what i thought too, but if you look on that link then you can see them for sale yourself. Take it up with him if you're confused i'm just the messenger

EDIT: the GT7 is noted as 'ideal displays' and 'supplied with or without engine' so i guess some other gubbins has been removed to make it non-flyable whereas the FA2 has been labelled as 'complete and ready to fly'

 

[StobieWan]

That brings me to another point i'd like to bring up, could someone give me a comparison of agility/dogfighting ability of the F35C? I mean i know its a pretty good ground attack aircraft i'm just curious about its air-to-air capability, i'm assuming its pretty good too.

Should be pretty good - it's rated for a fairly high angle of attack, has a good thrust to weight ratio with an air to air load and half an internal fuel load, the pilots that have flown the A compare it favourably with the F16 so pretty agile - add EODAS for very good all around awareness, solid radar..it's also going to be pretty sharp on acceleration given the engine is optimised for transonic performance.

Not as good as an F22 but nothing else is - I think it'll be a handful in the hands of a good pilot and the ability to cue a missile over the shoulder or right under the aircraft will mean it's a dangerous opponent inside visual range as well.

Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

Should be pretty good - it's rated for a fairly high angle of attack, has a good thrust to weight ratio with an air to air load and half an internal fuel load, the pilots that have flown the A compare it favourably with the F16 so pretty agile - add EODAS for very good all around awareness, solid radar..it's also going to be pretty sharp on acceleration given the engine is optimised for transonic performance.

Not as good as an F22 but nothing else is - I think it'll be a handful in the hands of a good pilot and the ability to cue a missile over the shoulder or right under the aircraft will mean it's a dangerous opponent inside visual range as well.

Ian

Excellent, although most of its A2A engagements would be BVR its still important for aircraft to retain its agility. One would think in this era of stealth, increased range missiles and radar and ability to hit planes off BVR planes would become a bit flabby but the opposite has happened with the F-22, for ground attack the F-35 is brilliant but i raised the question as it would ultimately be the FAA only fighter aircraft so 'dogfighting' would be very important as it'd be on its own.

Yeah, F-22 is top for air supremacy. Didn't expect that level due to its job its designed for but i expect its more than capable to hold its own within visual range.

NOTE: found a pretty good EODAS video on Youtube, so hope you guys enjoy

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ"]AN/AAQ-37 EO DAS for the F-35 - YouTube[/nomedia]

Its a very comprehensive showcase of what the EODAS can do, highly recommend it.

 

[Waylander]

And it even featured a suicidal EF....!

I just couldn't help it. Aren't these promotional videos pure gold...?

 

[StobieWan]

And it even featured a suicidal EF....!

I just couldn't help it. Aren't these promotional videos pure gold...?

Probably best to continue the F35 discussion on this thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-multirole-joint-strike-fighter-2013/

(that's for everyone - this is a Royal Navy thread, many of the questions about the F35 have already been debated and answered on the link I've referenced,


Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

Probably best to continue the F35 discussion on this thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-multirole-joint-strike-fighter-2013/

(that's for everyone - this is a Royal Navy thread, many of the questions about the F35 have already been debated and answered on the link I've referenced,


Ian

True, it has gone off track.

AFAIK HMS Queen Elizabeth will not have aircraft aboard for some years, are there plans to use the carrier to carry helicopters and such just to make use of it? Or will it just remain in dock until its 'occupied'? If not that would be rather sad.

What about the supposed plans to replace the 4.5in gun with a 155mm gun? I know theres a picture on the internet of a prototype turret but thats all i know, I do know that the advantages of introducing a 155mm gun means increased commonality with the Army (and thus greater interest in developing better shells) but does the 155mm offer many advantages on the battlefield? I'd imagine slower ROF and increased range.

EDIT: Here's the image

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=15...=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=1252&bih=542

Looks awesome i reckon.

 

[Vanguard]

QE has at least three years of sea-trials before commissioning in about 2019 I believe at which stage it will take over from HMS Ocean as the helicopter carrier for a year or so until the crew moves over to the PoW for six-months trials, then commissioning followed by a load of training for F-35 operations. I'm fairly sure that is the current plan, it is likely to change though. The future of the QE when the PoW comes into service is still in debate but could involve either selling or refit to have launchers and other carrier bits installed which I think is the preferred option to be the Anglo-French training carrier which, I have seen speculation, could lead to to RFA Argus' scheduled decommissioning without a replacement for the ASS side of things (i.e. just a small medical ship).

Also I'm fairly sure the 155mm project was cut awhile back.

 

[RobWilliams]

QE has at least three years of sea-trials before commissioning in about 2019 I believe at which stage it will take over from HMS Ocean as the helicopter carrier for a year or so until the crew moves over to the PoW for six-months trials, then commissioning followed by a load of training for F-35 operations. I'm fairly sure that is the current plan, it is likely to change though. The future of the QE when the PoW comes into service is still in debate but could involve either selling or refit to have launchers and other carrier bits installed which I think is the preferred option to be the Anglo-French training carrier which, I have seen speculation, could lead to to RFA Argus' scheduled decommissioning without a replacement for the ASS side of things (i.e. just a small medical ship).

Also I'm fairly sure the 155mm project was cut awhile back.

Good good, you hear so many different versions of events its difficult to sort out the rubbish from the truth. What will HMS Ocean do whilst QE takes over, decommision or refit or something? Thats the most bizarre thing, why would you design 2 carriers having 2 different styles of launching aircraft. SURELY someone thought 'hang on, this doesn't make sense' as i'd have thought it would just be simpler to maintain if both carriers used the same launching/recovery method.

I really hope the QE gets catapults fitted, but would she have to go back into dry dock for work to remove the ski ramp to be completed as it would seem to be a fairly major job? Or is the 'ramp' essentially a bolt on fixture which can be easily removed. I'm not sure how the construction process works so

Yeah, just found out it was cancelled late 2010, dunno why i still thought it was going :crazy

EDIT: Ok if you look at the second image down on this link, the 155mm looks brilliant in comparison to the 4.5in gun

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.htm

 

[Vanguard]

They aren't being built with different systems, neither will have the ski-ramp. The only difference will be that the QEII will not have her launchers fitted initially as she will be required before then (Ocean is decommissioned in 2018 if on schedule however it may be extended at a push, assuming she is not cut earlier the Argus should last until 2020 with regular minor refits to keep her going and the routine replacement of medical equipment) to serve in the Navy and begin class sea-trials. For getting the launchers she will have to go back into dry-dock, firstly because they like to do that with new ships in a class just to check how they are holding up, and secondly because it is probably easier to do it in such conditions (It would also give the dry docks more experience in maneuvering such a big ship in and out). The class was designed with the idea that they would eventually be fitted with launchers as it was anticipated that it would be better in the future for the Royal Navy to utilize such aircraft (it wasn't anticipated that the change would be so quick though) so they do not require a lot of modification but the flightdeck will have to have a good degree of reforms as will the rear (aviation) island but that will be more internal wise (outfitting of control rooms) I would imagine.

Ramp wise they would, if installed, probably have cost quite a bit to remove I know the Illustrious which has a similar deck ski-jump (as opposed to a built in one such as on the JCI/Canberra Class) was talked about having its removed to allow for additional helicopters on deck during its recent refit but it was decided that it would not be worth the expense for such a limited time period of service. And more than likely the Navy wanted to keep open the option of bringing back the Harriers.

 

[StobieWan]

Good good, you hear so many different versions of events its difficult to sort out the rubbish from the truth. What will HMS Ocean do whilst QE takes over, decommision or refit or something? Thats the most bizarre thing, why would you design 2 carriers having 2 different styles of launching aircraft. SURELY someone thought 'hang on, this doesn't make sense' as i'd have thought it would just be simpler to maintain if both carriers used the same launching/recovery method.

I really hope the QE gets catapults fitted, but would she have to go back into dry dock for work to remove the ski ramp to be completed as it would seem to be a fairly major job? Or is the 'ramp' essentially a bolt on fixture which can be easily removed. I'm not sure how the construction process works so

Yeah, just found out it was cancelled late 2010, dunno why i still thought it was going :crazy

EDIT: Ok if you look at the second image down on this link, the 155mm looks brilliant in comparison to the 4.5in gun

Britain 155 mm/52 Future Naval Gun

Shame about the 155mm but currently the Type 26 is set to be offered with either one of two 127mm mounts - so fingers crossed we'd then go on to buy the Oto Melario with Vulcano ammunition (cor..wants...)

 

[RobWilliams]

They aren't being built with different systems, neither will have the ski-ramp. The only difference will be that the QEII will not have her launchers fitted initially as she will be required before then (Ocean is decommissioned in 2018 if on schedule however it may be extended at a push, assuming she is not cut earlier the Argus should last until 2020 with regular minor refits to keep her going and the routine replacement of medical equipment) to serve in the Navy and begin class sea-trials. For getting the launchers she will have to go back into dry-dock, firstly because they like to do that with new ships in a class just to check how they are holding up, and secondly because it is probably easier to do it in such conditions (It would also give the dry docks more experience in maneuvering such a big ship in and out). The class was designed with the idea that they would eventually be fitted with launchers as it was anticipated that it would be better in the future for the Royal Navy to utilize such aircraft (it wasn't anticipated that the change would be so quick though) so they do not require a lot of modification but the flightdeck will have to have a good degree of reforms as will the rear (aviation) island but that will be more internal wise (outfitting of control rooms) I would imagine.

Ramp wise they would, if installed, probably have cost quite a bit to remove I know the Illustrious which has a similar deck ski-jump (as opposed to a built in one such as on the JCI/Canberra Class) was talked about having its removed to allow for additional helicopters on deck during its recent refit but it was decided that it would not be worth the expense for such a limited time period of service. And more than likely the Navy wanted to keep open the option of bringing back the Harriers.

Ok thanks for explaining, i was confused by most of the 'artists impressions' of the ship showed it having a ski ramp which i assumed would be the end result, guess that made it that bit more illogical. Ah i see, so no launchers while it replaced the role of HMS Ocean as it'd be unnececcesary, ok you hear so many different things if you try google this

So why would this make HMS Queen Elizabeths future less certain? I read somewhere above that once HMS Prince of Wales comes into service HMS Queen Elizabeth is going to have some issues regarding its future which to me sounds illogical as it doesn't sound it would be incredibly difficult fitting catapults. (these will be EMALS catapults won't they?) The most likely option will be using the 2 in rotation, its the most logical approach in several respects.

 

[RobWilliams]

Shame about the 155mm but currently the Type 26 is set to be offered with either one of two 127mm mounts - so fingers crossed we'd then go on to buy the Oto Melario with Vulcano ammunition (cor..wants...)

I wish the 155mm had been fitted, it'd advance Army/Naval developments in advanced shells. That and it would be a boost to the current artillery manufacturing industry in this country as IIRC we've built all the AS90s for the Army so buying some more units would be beneficial. Would the FCS in the 4.5in turret have been the same as the 155mm?

Heres an interesting link on the 127mm Naval Gun, for those of you who (like me) thought '127mm, do we even use that?', according to BAE its used by the USN so i expect most of the money for developing advanced munitions would come from their pocket. Doesn't look too bad i have to say

127-mm Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun Mount - BAE Systems

 

[swerve]

The Italians have already developed guided ammunition (Vulcano) for their own 127mm, which I'm sure is compatible with the US (makers now owned by BAe) 127mm. IIRC Oto Melara is marketing it to users of the US gun.

I'd expect any US-developed advanced rounds to be compatible with both guns.

 

[swerve]

Thats what i thought too, but if you look on that link then you can see them for sale yourself. Take it up with him if you're confused i'm just the messenger

EDIT: the GT7 is noted as 'ideal displays' and 'supplied with or without engine' so i guess some other gubbins has been removed to make it non-flyable whereas the FA2 has been labelled as 'complete and ready to fly'

The GR7 is said to be "the only privately owned second generation Harrier". It must have been sold off before the mass sale to the USA of the remaining GRs.

The FA2s were offered to India soon after being retired, but turned down, after evaluation. The officially stated reasons were that they were offered without AMRAAM missiles (Doh! They knew that we couldn't sell them on without US permission, & they weren't part of the offered package) & without the Blue Vixen radar, & they were stated to be useless without radars. I don't know why we refused to sell the Blue Vixen, but this was an equally specious reason for rejecting the aircraft. India had already signed up to re-fit their existing Sea Harriers with the Elta EL/M-2032 & Derby BVRAAM. Adding FA2s to the refit programme would have been easy, & given them the advantages of radar & missile standardisation across the fleet.

They've since bought several airframes to strip down for spares to keep their old SHARs flying, & I think they've also bought spare engines. There probably aren't enough left for Thailand.

 

[StobieWan]

I wish the 155mm had been fitted, it'd advance Army/Naval developments in advanced shells. That and it would be a boost to the current artillery manufacturing industry in this country as IIRC we've built all the AS90s for the Army so buying some more units would be beneficial. Would the FCS in the 4.5in turret have been the same as the 155mm?

Heres an interesting link on the 127mm Naval Gun, for those of you who (like me) thought '127mm, do we even use that?', according to BAE its used by the USN so i expect most of the money for developing advanced munitions would come from their pocket. Doesn't look too bad i have to say

127-mm Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun Mount - BAE Systems

The US failed miserably to get a working, practical and affordable guided 5 inch round working under the ERGM program - Vulcano is available off the shelf as far as I understand it.

Right now, anything is going to be an improvement over 114mm DP in terms of terminal effects etc,


Ian

 

[Sea Toby]

Ok thanks for explaining, i was confused by most of the 'artists impressions' of the ship showed it having a ski ramp which i assumed would be the end result, guess that made it that bit more illogical. Ah i see, so no launchers while it replaced the role of HMS Ocean as it'd be unnececcesary, ok you hear so many different things if you try google this

So why would this make HMS Queen Elizabeths future less certain? I read somewhere above that once HMS Prince of Wales comes into service HMS Queen Elizabeth is going to have some issues regarding its future which to me sounds illogical as it doesn't sound it would be incredibly difficult fitting catapults. (these will be EMALS catapults won't they?) The most likely option will be using the 2 in rotation, its the most logical approach in several respects.

I believe that was the plan until the recent planned personnel cutbacks. I wonder whether the Royal Navy will have enough personnel to man a second carrier now. I would install EMALS on the Queen Elizabeth too even if she was destined to replace the Ocean as a LPH, doing so would be useful when Prince of Wales or Charles de Gaulle underwent a long drydock period as a backup.