The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redshift]

This is a copy of the post I made in the F-35 international thread.


Seems to be some debate wrt to the RN’s F-35B fleet size. An apparent budget black hole of 20£ billion is the reason and government is claiming GCAP and a bigger F-35B isn’t affordable. Given the range issue, block 4 delay, weapons integration delay, and increased sustainability costs for the “B” version, perhaps the carrier CATOBAR conversion may have been the better idea.

United Kingdom's F-35B Fleet Plans Under Threat As Defense Cuts Loom

Faced with defense budget constraints, a tough choice may need to be made between the F-35 and the Tempest stealth fighter program.

www.twz.com

No it wouldn't have been, the conversion at such a late stage could well still be going on today!

No budget has been made and no defence review has happened, there are however a LOT of rumours being kicked around by the very hostile Daily Telegraph, the Mail, the Sun and the Express. These "news" papers are virtually the new opposition party often quoting comments made by ex Tory MPs as some sort of reliable inside information from the current government.

 

[Redshift]

No it wouldn't have been, the conversion at such a late stage could well still be going on today!

No budget has been made and no defence review has happened, there are however a LOT of rumours being kicked around by the very hostile Daily Telegraph, the Mail, the Sun and the Express. These "news" papers are virtually the new opposition party often quoting comments made by ex Tory MPs as some sort of reliable inside information from the current government.

Funny I didn't read the article until after I posted the above comment and just look what I found when I opened it up

"Unnamed British defense sources have raised concerns to The Telegraph newspaper about a potential cut to the planned 138-aircraft F-35B fleet"

 

[Redshift]

Funny I didn't read the article until after I posted the above comment and just look what I found when I opened it up

"Unnamed British defense sources have raised concerns to The Telegraph newspaper about a potential cut to the planned 138-aircraft F-35B fleet"

Have a little read about the owners of the Telegraph and some of their illustrious history not toention that for a long time the Telegraph holding company was based in Bermuda lol

David and Frederick Barclay - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[swerve]

Seems to be some debate wrt to the RN’s F-35B fleet size. An apparent budget black hole of 20£ billion is the reason and government is claiming GCAP and a bigger F-35B isn’t affordable. Given the range issue, block 4 delay, weapons integration delay, and increased sustainability costs for the “B” version, perhaps the carrier CATOBAR conversion may have been the better idea.

Overall, that would probably have been more expensive, especially to maintain the same number of carrier-capable aircraft. Building & maintaining a cat & trap aircraft fleet is very expensive. Extra ship cost, of course, in building, maintenance & operations, & considerable extra cost to keep each fighter operational. Pilots need a lot of take-offs & landings to maintain cat & trap proficiency. The whole ship has to be operated for those pilot experience exercises. Not cheap.

STOVL is much easier & cheaper to keep running. It also allows land-based pilots to be a reserve for carrier operations, which isn't possible for cat & trap. This was demonstrated in 1982, when RAF Harrier pilots operated from RN carriers with a brief spell of conversion training.

 

[Volkodav]

Overall, that would probably have been more expensive, especially to maintain the same number of carrier-capable aircraft. Building & maintaining a cat & trap aircraft fleet is very expensive. Extra ship cost, of course, in building, maintenance & operations, & considerable extra cost to keep each fighter operational. Pilots need a lot of take-offs & landings to maintain cat & trap proficiency. The whole ship has to be operated for those pilot experience exercises. Not cheap.

STOVL is much easier & cheaper to keep running. It also allows land-based pilots to be a reserve for carrier operations, which isn't possible for cat & trap. This was demonstrated in 1982, when RAF Harrier pilots operated from RN carriers with a brief spell of conversion training.

I can't place my hands on the reference but I believe STOVL also generates significantly higher sortie rates. While the operational range is less, fewer aircraft can maintain more aircraft on station and conducting operations.

 

[seaspear]

I have also read references to higher sortie rates and also to operate from their carriers in higher sea states than there U.S.N counterparts with conventional aircraft

Getting jets to sea – more squadrons, more pilots please | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

F-35, HMS Prince of Wales Flight Trials Yield Data for Future Operational Capability

WESTERN ATLANTIC OCEAN (Nov. 9, 2023) — A third phase of F-35 Lightning II developmental test (DT-3) flight trials aboard U.K. Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers concluded over the weekend

www.navy.mil

 

[StobieWan]

I can't place my hands on the reference but I believe STOVL also generates significantly higher sortie rates. While the operational range is less, fewer aircraft can maintain more aircraft on station and conducting operations.

Particularly with the RN system where ATC just gives an aircraft a spot to land on and leaves them to it so recovery is just much faster than a catobar landing - and re-spotting can be an air taxi instead of a manual plane move if weather and deck conditions allow it. You do take a kicking in terms of range and stores but the B does have a few tricks up its sleeve.

The conversions may happen at some point in the future, but if one of the carriers had been converted to CATOBAR (and there was no budget for converting both) then we'd have been that creek with no propulsion, because of course, both carriers have been engineering casualties at one point or another - and in all cases, the RN has been able to seamlessly insert the alternate to pick up the slack.
My personal bet would have been for the conversion to have run over time and budget and then to have languished alongside.


It was a poorly thought out diversion of resources by an incoming government who really seemed to have their heads up their rears when it came to defense.

 

[John Fedup]

While STOVL has advantages, (ship cost, reduced training and maintenance, better foul weather capability, possibly higher sortie rates), there are some negatives. For VL, there is only one fighter choice, the F-35B and its limitations include shorter range and fewer weapons options. Without CATOBAR, Hawkeyes can't be utilised. If some future grounding for the F-35B were to occur, naval aviation comes to a complete stop for STOVL operators. However, for most navies, STOVL carriers are the only affordable option and they provide a decent naval aviation capability.

THE USN has the luxury of having both types of ships. Also, CVNs can accommodate both F-35Bs and F-35Cs if required. For blue water navies like the USN and PLAN, having carrier aircraft that allow carriers to remain out of range of most ashore based missiles is important. It would be interesting to know the relative difference in sortie rates for a CVN versus an America class assault ship., especially wrt mission duration.

 

[StobieWan]

STOVL was where the dice had fallen at the time of the 2010 SDSR. EMALS and AARG weren't mature enough prior to that time but there is room for an alternative "what if" in which the carriers don't get pushed to the right and the RN buys in say, 24 E/F-18's, kicking the can on 5G carrier jets a decade down the line. Thing is, on the range thing, E/F-18 is similar/same to the B. Stores, more in it but range, nothing to write home about.

I dunno, I think STOVL for the QE's was the best bet at the time.

 

[John Fedup]

STOVL was where the dice had fallen at the time of the 2010 SDSR. EMALS and AARG weren't mature enough prior to that time but there is room for an alternative "what if" in which the carriers don't get pushed to the right and the RN buys in say, 24 E/F-18's, kicking the can on 5G carrier jets a decade down the line. Thing is, on the range thing, E/F-18 is similar/same to the B. Stores, more in it but range, nothing to write home about.

I dunno, I think STOVL for the QE's was the best bet at the time.

STOVL was probably the best option at the time and may still for the next 20 years for many navies that need carrier aviation capability The big question is what follows the F-35B? Sole source kind of sucks but such is life. The other issue is specialised aircraft (Hawkeye etc.). STOVL UAVs may be the solution.

 

[StobieWan]

STOVL was probably the best option at the time and may still for the next 20 years for many navies that need carrier aviation capability The big question is what follows the F-35B? Sole source kind of sucks but such is life. The other issue is specialised aircraft (Hawkeye etc.). STOVL UAVs may be the solution.

There is a project underway to bring in UAV's of a fair size into CATOBAR ops on the QE's sometime in the future - could be a while yet but the carriers have an anticipated 50 year life span.

Project Ark Royal – Plans for angled decks and drones

As part of Project Ark Royal, significant upgrades to the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers would be undertaken.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

It's not quite but almost blue sky research for now but maybe..maybe?

 

[Systems Adict]

In other news....

2nd Type 26 enter the water.

HMS Cardiff floated off

Glasgow & Cardiff side-by-side

 

[John Fedup]

The RN is investigating the suitability of SMRs for surface ships. I can see several problems, cost, sustainability, disposal, and most importantly the ability to perform damage control if the reactor is damaged in a combat situation. The latter issue may be ok for a large Ford/Nimitz CVN which is better protected by size and esorts but smaller ships, an issue. Some of these problems may be minimised by the new technology utilised by SMRs. Will be interesting to see what develops. A decent idea for heavy ice breakers IMHO.

Britain considering building nuclear powered warships (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

 

[StobieWan]

well, an SMR is just a pressurised water reactor on a small scale - so, kinda like a sub reactor - not sure what the gain will be here. The main up front issues are cost to build, cost to run and, as you say, damage control.

I don't think the idea has legs, put it that way.

 

[Redlands18]

The RN is investigating the suitability of SMRs for surface ships. I can see several problems, cost, sustainability, disposal, and most importantly the ability to perform damage control if the reactor is damaged in a combat situation. The latter issue may be ok for a large Ford/Nimitz CVN which is better protected by size and esorts but smaller ships, an issue. Some of these problems may be minimised by the new technology utilised by SMRs. Will be interesting to see what develops. A decent idea for heavy ice breakers IMHO.

Britain considering building nuclear powered warships (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

The Americans stopped building CGNs in the mid 70s for a reason.

 

[StevoJH]

The RN is investigating the suitability of SMRs for surface ships. I can see several problems, cost, sustainability, disposal, and most importantly the ability to perform damage control if the reactor is damaged in a combat situation. The latter issue may be ok for a large Ford/Nimitz CVN which is better protected by size and esorts but smaller ships, an issue. Some of these problems may be minimised by the new technology utilised by SMRs. Will be interesting to see what develops. A decent idea for heavy ice breakers IMHO.

Britain considering building nuclear powered warships (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

I don't really see how a modern SMR would be any different to a Cruiser/Destroyer Plant from the 70's or 80's. And they stopped being made for a reason.....

The only thing I could think of would be that the RN are concerned it won't be practical to meet future energy generation requirements with a conventional plant?

Or could it be that ship costs have risen far enough now that switching to nuclear propulsion would not be a significant difference?

 

[John Fedup]

I don't really see how a modern SMR would be any different to a Cruiser/Destroyer Plant from the 70's or 80's. And they stopped being made for a reason.....

The only thing I could think of would be that the RN are concerned it won't be practical to meet future energy generation requirements with a conventional plant?

Or could it be that ship costs have risen far enough now that switching to nuclear propulsion would not be a significant difference?

I think investigating is the key word. Is a SMR a safer reactor for use on a ship? Don’t know. Is a SMR cost effective? Don’t know. It is worthwhile to find out IMO. Clearly future energy requirements may be difficult for GTs. Reducing fossil fuels, clearly a popular option.

 

[swerve]

Can the RN budget afford it? Consider our current backlog of submarines awaiting dismantling - because of their reactors. Nuclear propulsion has very high additional costs, over & above purchase & operational costs.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Can the RN budget afford it? Consider our current backlog of submarines awaiting dismantling - because of their reactors. Nuclear propulsion has very high additional costs, over & above purchase & operational costs.

Agreed. I was amazed this is even being looked into. This seems like pie in the sky to me, a waste of time and money even if it's just considering the possibility.

How about considering something practical, like whether we need more than six destroyers when Type 83 is constructed?

 

[John Fedup]

Again, it is a study to find out if SMRs might be a better alternative to existing nuclear technology wrt cost and safety. I have my doubts as well but if the results are positive then certainly it might be an advantage for larger vessels equipped with future energy weapon systems and power hungry sensor systems. Keeps some open minded greenies happy as well.