The RAF would prefer C - range and payload are both good. I don't think the RAF doctrinally have any continued interest in STOVL ops and haven't since the cold war died a death and with it, the threat of every airfield getting a bucket of instant sunshine.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
AFAIK there isn't any actual plans to replace HMS Ocean but BAE do have a few designs rattling around.
BAE Systems
Look at the artists impression of the LPD designs, from what I can see it looks like it'd be heli only.
It's official. Hammond has told the Commons. Just heard him on the Beeb. Back to F-35B.
Expected to be flying off Queen Elizabeth in 2018. For £60 mn extra per year, we can have two usable carriers, one operating & one at 'high readiness'.
Said the design provision for cat & trap wasn't quite what had been thought. EMALS doesn't fit into the spaces reserved for a steam cat system without significant and expensive redesign. He confirmed that CVF02 could have it, but at increased cost, whereas refitting those parts of CVF01 already constructed would not only cost even more, but be technically risky.
Maybe there's a future opportunity there for an EM catapult system designed to be refittable to the ships we have. Someone tell the EMCAT people.
Expected to be flying off Queen Elizabeth in 2018. For £60 mn extra per year, we can have two usable carriers, one operating & one at 'high readiness'.
Said the design provision for cat & trap wasn't quite what had been thought. EMALS doesn't fit into the spaces reserved for a steam cat system without significant and expensive redesign. He confirmed that CVF02 could have it, but at increased cost, whereas refitting those parts of CVF01 already constructed would not only cost even more, but be technically risky.
Maybe there's a future opportunity there for an EM catapult system designed to be refittable to the ships we have. Someone tell the EMCAT people.
Yup
Aircraft carrier 'omnishambles' wastes £50 million - Telegraph
I read in an earlier article on the matter, that the Coalition are going to have to buy 136 Bs rather than the 90ish Cs to make up the capability deficit. Is there any truth in that?
Also, in regards to the B, how does the smaller internal weapons bays affect the RN in regards to the amount + type of munitions it will carry? (I accept this is probably a bad Q to ask as I could find the answer myself, but I tried and all I could find was a general list of munitions for the F-35 in general with no specific mentions)
I'm back to that line from Kill Bill 2 - which R you more filled with? Relief or Regret?
Right, recommence floggings at the yard, get those scamps back to work!
kev 99
Member
The only air to ground munition in the MOD inventory that will fit either is 500lb Paveway II or IV.
There has been talk of Brimstone as internally carried but since it's rail launched I don't see how this would work.
In the future there will almost certainly be Spear Capability 3 but the only mock up of this shows 2 in a F35A bay, I would suggest it will probably be 1 only for the B variant.
I believe the inner weapons bays are the 2 wet ones so Stormshadow is only carriable on the same bay that external tanks can be carried on.
EDIT this is wrong! got my weights wrong for Storm Shadow - they only weight 1300kg so can it used on the 2 outer air to ground pylons.
Last edited:
Here's the formal statement from Hammond in case anyone was interested :
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | MOD announces change of Joint Striker Fighter jet
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | MOD announces change of Joint Striker Fighter jet
The same is likely to be true if the design had been focused just on the B model. 2-3 enlarged JC1 (say 40,000t) would be cheaper and more flexible than a couple of CATOBAR ships. This is particularly relevant when the number of aircraft is reduced.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
At the very least it is a good thing that the situation is now certain (or fairly certain) and everyone can move on with planning the capability.
Regardless of which version is bought, the end capability is going to be far and away more capable than the outgoing Harrier or any alternative and the RN is going to be well served.
Regardless of which version is bought, the end capability is going to be far and away more capable than the outgoing Harrier or any alternative and the RN is going to be well served.
Last edited:
Neutral Zone
New Member
At least the decision is made, for good or for bad, and the RN will have two carriers alternating in service. I still find Hammond's figures to be about as credible as Piltdown Man but that doesn't matter anymore.
kev 99
Member
The design was focused on the F35b and an airgroup of 40, the ship was designed as a STOVL carrier capable of operating 100 sorties a day. This came from the 98 SDR when we were getting 150 JCA.
JC1 isn't really an aircraft carrier, its an AMPHIB that can operate as one (when it's not acting as an AMPHIB), so it's quite a long distance from what the MOD Carrier strike requirement was all about.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
And by operate, they mean that they can do enough to maintain carrier qualifications while the 'real' carrier is in refit.
Ah, but it looks as though that image you linked is in lbs, as just below it says "Over 18K lbs Of Payload Capacity" so that'd make StormShadow too heavy for stations 3 + 9 IF it is in lbs wouldn't it?
spsun100001
New Member
Not sure how up to date it is....
...but this article seems to have a lot of information on the F35 weapon capability
UK Armed Forces Commentary: F35B, F35C, rethinks, weaponry, costs and the difficult choices - UPDATED
Unless I've missed it at no point is HARM/ALARM or Harpoon mentioned. Are we going to end up with a carrier whose aircraft cannot undertake SEAD or maritime strike missions?
...but this article seems to have a lot of information on the F35 weapon capability
UK Armed Forces Commentary: F35B, F35C, rethinks, weaponry, costs and the difficult choices - UPDATED
Unless I've missed it at no point is HARM/ALARM or Harpoon mentioned. Are we going to end up with a carrier whose aircraft cannot undertake SEAD or maritime strike missions?
kev 99
Member
As far as I'm aware none of those weapons are due for integration, JSM is a development of the Naval Strike Missile and will do the maritime strike role and it's going to be internally carried by the A/C, to large for the B to carry internally though.
kev 99
Member
Yes looks like you're right, that also means JASSM will only fit on the innermost pylons as well for the B.
I expect they could, if absolutely neccesary, but only in extreme circumstances as HMS Ocean would restrict the B to only VTOL ops meaning that the amount of munitions + fuel it can carry is very limited (at least, that's my understanding of issues with vertical take-offs)
Also, would the deck be able to cope with F35B VTOL ops? I've read a few reports about people being concerned about the deck of USS Wasp so wouldn't HMS Ocean be more vunerable? After all, i wouldn't have thought the flight deck on Ocean would have been designed to be as robust as Wasps'
EDIT: A quick scan over Wiki, seems Ocean was described as being able to 'carry, but not operate' Harriers, so no chance for the F35B - if it's correct however as i'm not 100% sure if Ocean could/couldn't so.
kev 99
Member
It can get off of it, if it has too, it wouldn't be able to operate with much of a load though and it might be too heavy to land with any payload at all. So basically just act as a ferry or an emergency landpad.