The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Yes looks like you're right, that also means JASSM will only fit on the innermost pylons as well for the B.

That's irritating, having to throw up the choice of external fuel and StormShadows.

Although, the NSM - according to Wiki - could fit on the 2 outer A2G pylons (as it's only around 400kg so even if Wiki is wrong, still a fair amount of wiggle-room), so that's not bad. It'd give the B a better ASuW capability - external fuel tanks (if it needed them) + 2 x NSM. That's pretty nifty.

 

[kev 99]

That's irritating, having to throw up the choice of external fuel and StormShadows.

Although, the NSM - according to Wiki - could fit on the 2 outer A2G pylons (as it's only around 400kg so even if Wiki is wrong, still a fair amount of wiggle-room), so that's not bad. It'd give the B a better ASuW capability - external fuel tanks (if it needed them) + 2 x NSM. That's pretty nifty.

You could always carry 1 Stormshadow and 1 external fuel tank.

 

[RobWilliams]

You could always carry 1 Stormshadow and 1 external fuel tank.

I didn't even know you can do that.

I guess I just assumed that aircrafts loadouts have to be symmetric (every image/video of aircraft i've seen are like that) for some reason, keeping the aircraft balanced I guess? (i understand now how this is flawed)

Actually thinking about it, it's a very limp explanation, didn't think about it much i suppose

Well, that'd seem like a decent solution given the circumstances available. To be honest, it's making the B sound like not a bad option after all for the RN

 

[spsun100001]

I didn't even know you can do that.

I guess I just assumed that aircrafts loadouts have to be symmetric (every image/video of aircraft i've seen are like that) for some reason, keeping the aircraft balanced I guess? (i understand now how this is flawed)

Actually thinking about it, it's a very limp explanation, didn't think about it much i suppose

Well, that'd seem like a decent solution given the circumstances available. To be honest, it's making the B sound like not a bad option after all for the RN

I think Super Etendards are often flown like that.

Can the F35b undertake buddy buddy refuelling?

 

[Systems Adict]

I had a funny feeling you'd jump in and get it right

Where's the 'LIKE' button around here ?

LoL

Anyway, having helped during the build & testing of Albion, Bulwark & the x4 Bays, It's fair to say I have some experience of them being all ships, to all men......

SA

 

[RobWilliams]

I think Super Etendards are often flown like that.

Can the F35b undertake buddy buddy refuelling?

Phew, so i might not be completely insane.

My understanding is that there's no buddy-buddy capability (nor is there one on the horizon) but regular air-to-air refueling is there.

http://www.cobham.com/media/77351/303 - cobham enables f-35b aerial refueling.pdf

 

[Systems Adict]

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.

Hmmmm.....

Nothing to do with the fact that BAE are helping with the Australian LPD's that are being built in Spain / finished in Oz ??

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_035839



SA

 

[RobWilliams]

Hmmmm.....

Nothing to do with the fact that BAE are helping with the Australian LPD's that are being built in Spain / finished in Oz ??

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_035839



SA

I was trying to suggest that whilst officially there are no plans to construct a replacement but - should a replacement be desired in the future - there are feasible designs that could be helpful to the MOD. Not that because those designs exist, the MOD must have had a 'chat' to BAE about it in anticipation.

I apologise if that wasn't clear

 

[spsun100001]

Phew, so i might not be completely insane.

My understanding is that there's no buddy-buddy capability (nor is there one on the horizon) but regular air-to-air refueling is there.

http://www.cobham.com/media/77351/303 - cobham enables f-35b aerial refueling.pdf

And to prove you're not insane:

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/26172/0x0/sue-20con-20exocet.jpg

 

[RobWilliams]

And to prove you're not insane:

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/26172/0x0/sue-20con-20exocet.jpg

Ah, i seem to have crossed wires somewhere, where you said SE fly 'like that', i thought you meant using symmetric rather than asymmetric loadouts.

My mistake

Still, learn something new every day.

 

[1805]

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.

My point was that the benefits of the F35b meant that carriers could be built cheaper, not to refer back to the RN's view of how to meet the 98 SDR. I suspect the JC1 will act as a carrier most of time, the 65,000 has always puzzled me, and I am guessing only but might have been with cats & traps in mind later.

Other examples might be 3 x Cavour, however had the RN not been dreaming of the past, the most logical approach would have been to merge the LPD, LPH & CV requirement, 5 into 3 hulls. Is this so radical, smothing like USS Wasp?

BTW I wonder if payload figures for the B are quited with the impact of a ramp (as the USMC don't plan to use one).

 

[kev 99]

My point was that the benefits of the F35b meant that carriers could be built cheaper, not to refer back to the RN's view of how to meet the 98 SDR. I suspect the JC1 will act as a carrier most of time, the 65,000 has always puzzled me, and I am guessing only but might have been with cats & traps in mind later.

Other examples might be 3 x Cavour, however had the RN not been dreaming of the past, the most logical approach would have been to merge the LPD, LPH & CV requirement, 5 into 3 hulls. Is this so radical, smothing like USS Wasp?

BTW I wonder if payload figures for the B are quited with the impact of a ramp (as the USMC don't plan to use one).

It's not the RN's view of what was in the 98 SDR it's what the SDR stated regarding carrier strike, the 3 WASPs that you're talking about fall quite a way short of delivering what a CVF can in terms of strike potential, they'd probably cost more to build and the RN would have to find over 1000 additional crewmen to pay as well.

 

[1805]

It's not the RN's view of what was in the 98 SDR it's what the SDR stated regarding carrier strike, the 3 WASPs that you're talking about fall quite a way short of delivering what a CVF can in terms of strike potential, they'd probably cost more to build and the RN would have to find over 1000 additional crewmen to pay as well.

You think that 3 x 40,000 modern designed UK built, would be more expensive to built, operate/crew than 2 x CVF CATOBAR, 2 LPD & 1 x LPH?

I think c40-60 F35b on 3 x 40,000t with 3 runways & 6 lifts will beat a similar number on 2 x CVF with 4 lifts & 4 cats.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

You think that 3 x 40,000 modern designed UK built, would be more expensive to built, operate/crew than 2 x CVF CATOBAR, 2 LPD & 1 x LPH?

I think c40-60 F35b on 3 x 40,000t with 3 runways & 6 lifts will beat a similar number on 2 x CVF with 4 lifts & 4 cats.

I think you are confusing sortie rates with combat effectiveness. More of one doesn't necessarily mean the better the other.

You could buy 10 hulls based on a single-screw bulk carrier that can each operate 14 F-35Bs. Won't make them any more operationally effective/capable than 2 x CVFs.

Your super-LHD isn't optimised for the kinds of sustained fighter operations a dedicated carrier is. LHDs don't have the kinds of aviation fuel and weapons storage as CVs, as much of that space is given over to or compromised by troop accommodation, the well dock and vehicle/troop access to it, landing craft accommodation and vehicles/stores decks.
Only superficially is an LHD similar to a CV, with a flat deck and an off-set island. Even the Invincible-class weren't designed for sustained combat operations, it was designed as an escort carrier for the North Atlantic. The fact that the RN used them as such and made it work is a credit to the RN and the Harrier.

Secondly, while one of those super-LHDs is passing through refit, and one is tasked with amphibious operations, you have one last compromised platform available for combat fighter ops. One super-LHD or one CVF? Which would you want?
Only rarely (and through a sustained, pre-planned effort) will all three super-LHDs be available, which means that for any given operation there will likely be only two super-LHDs available.

Thirdly, I would also think that a short-notice swing role between carrier ops and amphibious ops would be undesirable*. Instead of being practised and (hopefully) excellent at their specialised role, it would end up with crews that are good (or even average) at both. Let the carrier crews work on their fighter ops, and let the amphibious crews work on their amphibious ops.

The only reason to go for the super-LHDs is if you do not think your defence budget can support 2 x CVFs + dedicated LHD/LPDs. Which is perfectly valid. But if you think it can, then why would you compromise?

* Someone is going to bring up the USMC LHDs, aren't you? Their LHDs aren't being used as the US's primary strike platforms, that is the role of the CVNs. The LHDs specialise (and practise and exercise) in the close support of forces deployed ashore.

 

[kev 99]

You think that 3 x 40,000 modern designed UK built, would be more expensive to built, operate/crew than 2 x CVF CATOBAR, 2 LPD & 1 x LPH?

I think c40-60 F35b on 3 x 40,000t with 3 runways & 6 lifts will beat a similar number on 2 x CVF with 4 lifts & 4 cats.

Ocean and the 2 Albions were already built and paid and had plenty of life left in them so you can't include them in comparison.

Tee_centre has already explained why 2 CVF are better than your 3 LHDs in delivering a carrier strike capability.

Now if you think the requirement should have been different; that fixed wing and amphibious platforms for the RN should have been merged then you might be onto something as it is, what you'e suggesting doesn't meet the requirement and costs more money.

 

[swerve]

...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?

We don't have HARM. ALARM will be out of service too early to be worth integrating on F-35. SEAD can be done without missiles which home on radar emissions, though not necessarily as well, & we have the option of buying weapons which other F-35 users integrate.

The RN's view is that the main anti-ship weapon is the submarine, though we could buy the air-launched derivative of NSM, which is planned for integration on F-35.

 

[swerve]

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.

I think you mean LHD. The only LPD design is the Albion class, which is no longer being built or marketed.

The LHD design appears to be based on HMS Ocean.

 

[spsun100001]

We don't have HARM. ALARM will be out of service too early to be worth integrating on F-35. SEAD can be done without missiles which home on radar emissions, though not necessarily as well, & we have the option of buying weapons which other F-35 users integrate.

The RN's view is that the main anti-ship weapon is the submarine, though we could buy the air-launched derivative of NSM, which is planned for integration on F-35.

I think buying the NSM is vital then.

The submarine is a hugely effective anti ship weapon. But is it also tasked with protecting the RN's SSBN fleet (more critical since the loss of maritime patrol capability), it is also the RN's primary deep strike platform with Tomohawk, has a crucial role in intelligence gathering and it is also the most effective ASW platform going. And we have 7. That is a hell of a lot of capability eggs in 7 baskets!

I very much doubt with such a small number of SSN's we will be able to guarantee even one with the carrier at all times in all circumstances. Even if we do I'd far rather it's primary mission was ASW protection of the CV (which is probably the most difficult threat to counter) rather than attacking surface warships which can be done easily by an aircraft equipped with the right sort of missile.

 

[kev 99]

I agree about NSM, it's a must buy even if it's only in small numbers.

 

[RobWilliams]

The RN's view is that the main anti-ship weapon is the submarine, though we could buy the air-launched derivative of NSM, which is planned for integration on F-35.

That's true, for ASuW work an Astute (or Trafalger) is superb, but as NavyMatters puts the cost of a Spearfish at a cool £2million a pop + all the intergration work is already planned, wouldn't a buy of NSM be a cost effective decision for such a capability be a decent decision don't you think?

I mean, that's just my opinion but I think that it offers a pretty decent amount of tactical flexibility for a decent price.

note: All that's based on an assumption of NSM being a roughly similar price to StormShadow however, can't seem to find any reliable sources for cost.