Davies: both carriers will take JSF

HAVE YOUR SAY

Oops, no overspend? Just less equipment and far costlier than originally(supposedly) planned for. Still having privatised a lot of spending, then no doubt it’s far more difficult for the public to see what is going on. Although having gone through the process of procuring equipment then the Government can always get it back off the books. Flogging new equipment off to those foreign Governments that can afford it or job creation on a bizarre new level.
Chris - Keighley

Hooray!
j.cassford - ex R.O.C.

Quote from article: "both of the (UK's planned new aircraft) carriers will take JSF..."

But which version- the Short Take-off and Vertical Land (STOVL) F-35B version or the Conventional Take-off And Land (C-TOL) F-35C version?

The F-35B is very inferior to the F-35C in terms of range, speed, stealth (radar avoidance), payload, weapons fit and ongoing maintenance costs... mainly due to the F-35B having to have great deal of equipment fitted that the F-35C does not...

IE- in order to enable Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) functions, the F-35B has to be constructed with a very different airframe and substantially smaller wings than the F-35 C and the F-35B has to be fitted with many tonnes of specialized equipment that the Conventional Take-off and Land F-35C isn't...

After construction and delivery to the customer, an F-35B can not be structurally retrofitted to remove its STOVL capabilities and to provide it with the catapult-launch capabilities of the F-35C...

The F-35B is not physically capable of withstanding the stresses of being launched from and landing on Aircraft Carriers fitted with catapult launch-of-fixed-wing-aircraft equipment.

Currently, due to the hap-hazard, half-baked dangerous-economizing-methodology behind the UK's new aircraft carrier programme- in addition to their many, many other egregious design-flaws and build-deficiencies- the new vessels are intended to not be constructed with catapults...

Likely recognizing how much being without catapults will severely neuter their new carriers, over the last two years the UK govt and their spokespersons have regularly released statements that their new carriers are being built with 'a capability to be upgraded "after commissioning" by fitting them with catapults'....

Imagine- 7 or 8 billion (some estimates are upwards of 15 billion) pounds spent on 7 or 8 dozen F-35B STOVL fighters for deployment on aircraft carriers that don't have catapults... AND THEN, several years later- the govt decides- for vital national safety and capabilities reasons- to retrofit the new aircraft carriers with catapults->>> what will happen to the dozens of F-35B fighters that cost a small fortune to purchase???

And how will hundred(s) of new catapult-compatible fighter/fixed-wing aircraft be purchased for the new aircraft carriers once they are retrofitted??

Why do catapults matter?

Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy’s New AWACS-

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

The RN's new carriers- as currently planned- will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) & aircraft...

The United States is so concerned about the prevalence and rapidly evolving capabilities of ASCM's that every year for the last 7 years, US govt members have been briefed at length on ASCM's- and the urgent need for their Navy to upgrade its warships' (and especially aircraft carriers) already substantial capabilities and defenses in response:

https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2628/RL33153_20070529.pdf -

From page # 64 (page heading- CRS-60):

"Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)-

"(US Navy) Surface Ship AAW Upgrades.

"Are current Navy plans for upgrading surface ship anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities adequate?...

"...The PLA's (China's Navy) acquisition of advanced and highly capable (Anti Ship Cruise Missiles) ASCMs such as the SS-N-27 Sizzler and the SS-N-22 Sunburn raises the question of whether current plans for modernizing Navy surface ship AAW capabilities are adequate....

"The (US) Government Accountability Office (GAO) in previous years has expressed concerns regarding the Navy’s ability to counter ASCMs...

"Potential areas for modernization include, among other things, the following:

- "ship radars, such as the SPY-1 radar on Aegis ships or the radars now planned for the (Burke successor class) DDG-1000 destroyer and CG(X) cruiser;

- "(Anti Air Warfare) AAW-related computer networking capabilities, such as the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) system;

- "air defense missiles such as the Standard Missile, the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM);

- "close-in weapon systems, such as the Phalanx radar-directed (machine) gun;

- "potential directed-energy weapons, such as solid state or free-electron lasers;

- "decoys, such as the U.S.-Australian Nulka active electronic decoy; and

- "aerial targets for AAW (Anti Air Warfare) tests and exercises, particularly targets for emulating supersonic ASCMs...."
---------------------------

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf :

(page 21)

"Strategic Environment-

Rapidly evolving traditional and asymmetric threats continue to pose increasing challenges... State actors and non-state actors... are expanding their reach beyond their own shores with improved capabilities in blue water submarine operations, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. A number of countries who historically have only possessed regional military capabilities are investing in their Navy to extend their reach and influence as they compete in global markets. Our Navy will need to outpace other Navies in the blue water ocean environment as they extend their reach....."
---------------------------

In this century, up-to-date, ship-launched 'outer layer' anti airborne threat defensive weapons are mandatory equipment for pretty well all developed-economy countries' aircraft carriers and escort warships- such as Destroyers and Frigates- except for the UK's....

Outer layer airborne threat defensive weapons are vital to enable an incoming airborne (ASCM) threat to be engaged as far out as possible- 15 to 90 miles or more- rather than the barely 1 mile out that Goalkeeper and similar 'machine-gun based' 'inner layer' defence systems such as 'Phalanx' reach their effective limits at...

Modern anti-ship missiles travel in terminal mode at upwards of 3/4 of a mile per second making 'taking a second shot at the incoming missile- if the first shot misses'- highly likely to not be feasible for warships restricted to using only Goalkeeper, Phalanx or a similar (machine gun based) inner layer defence system....

Technologically up-to-date warships that have outer layer defence systems, and that miss an incoming airborne threat are able to 'take a second shot' at the threat using either their outer layer defence system again- or their inner layer defence system(s)- or both...

'Goalkeeper', 'Phalanx' and similar 'machine gun' based inner layer warship defence weapons (that remain installed on some RN warships) have not been shown in tests or battle records to be effective- as stand alone systems- at countering up-to-date airborne threats such as the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" anti-ship missile...

The fact is that, after 12-years of Labour negligence and a dangerous lack of funding for basic weapons upgrades, ALL in-service (commissioned) Royal Navy warships- and especially its 2 aircraft carriers- Ark Royal and Illustrious- are sitting ducks to recently developed supersonic anti-ship missiles, such as the Russian 'Sizzler' SS-N-27...

Other than the upgraded US Navy Aegis/ESSM/Standard Missile (SM-2) system, only the UK/France/Italy joint PAAMS/Aster system is thought to be able to counter this type of missile... but neither of these systems have been fitted to any of the Royal Navy's in-service Aircraft Carriers, Frigates or Destroyers.

IN ORDER TO IRRESPONSIBLY ECONOMIZE, CURRENT PLANS FOR THE UK's NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE FOR THESE VESSELS TO NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ANY 'OUTER LAYER' AIRBORNE THREAT SHIP SELF-DEFENCE WEAPONS...

AND- THE UK's NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE INTENDED TO BE BUILT WITHOUT ARMOUR:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1100714/The-4billion-Airfix-Kit-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html :

"... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though (Simon Knight, the project's Platform Design Director) insists this was a strategic* rather than a budgetary issue...

(*what kind of responsible 'strategy' would support building warships without armour??)

"(Simon Knight stated) 'The CVF’s first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds....

"'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems (IE: 25-year old 'inner layer' Phalanx machine guns- rvl) and small guns...

"'Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft ever made.'..."

(... aircraft whose designed-capabilities DO NOT include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...)

Is the value* of a sunk aircraft carrier or two less than the financial cost of properly constructing & competently equipping these warships??

(* in pounds, lives-lost and the UK's diminished national stature on the world stage)

If warship armour and inner layer as well as outer layer airborne threat defences weren't vitally important and necessary for modern aircraft carriers to have, again, why would other first world countries'- such as the US, Japan, S. Korea, France, and even Italy- be investing many, many millions of pounds in armour and airborne threat defences for their navies' aircraft carriers??

The US government has ensured that the US Navy's existing Nimitz class and 'improved Nimitz class' supercarriers and their planned next-generation 'G Ford' class supercarriers are comprehensively fitted out with cutting-edge technology armour-

http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm :

"... These (US Navy Improved Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements..."

"The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html :

"... (The G Ford class supercarrier) CVN 21 will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles...."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/ :

Note the text-

"... Under this order, the USS Theodore Roosevelt will receive 2 MK29 MOD 4 ESSM ORDALT Kits, and 4 Solid State Transmitter (SSTX) MK73 MOD 3 ORDALT Kits. ORDnance ALTeration kits allow ships to swap out their older RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missile systems for the RIM-162 ESSM, which is designed to deal with modern anti-ship missiles...."

"... This particular order also includes 2 more MK29 MOD 4 ESSM ORDALT Kits for use on LHD ships***..."

(*** the US Navy's 'medium-sized', 43,000-48,000 tonne aircraft carriers:

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm - RVL )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush_(CVN-77) :

Note the text-

".... Armament:

"... 2 × Mk 29 ESSM launcher & 2 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile..."

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/ :

Note the text-

"... Weapons:

"... The carrier will be armed with the Raytheon evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles. The close-in weapon system is the rolling airframe missile (RAM) from Raytheon and Ramsys GmbH...."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm :

Note the text-

"... Armament:

"•Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
•Rolling Airframe Missile
•CIWS ..."

If one compares the UK's (Labour govt's dangerous, astonishingly short-sighted cost-cutting-driven strategies) planned designs for the country's new 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers and these warships' atrociously deficient ship self-defence weapons, inter-squadron communications and damage-control-systems and these vessels' consequential impotent capabilities with the pretty much standard-for-the-industry capabilities of a properly designed and built 'helicopter carrier' 1/4 of the size of one of the UK's planned carriers'- Japan's recently commissioned 14,000 tonne "Hyuga"- .... and then asks:

"which of these two warships would win in a one on one battle?"...

... it becomes obvious that Labour is again selling out the country and its future for a few votes in Scottish Ministers' constituency seats...

"Japan Launches (Aircraft) Carrier...Sorta":

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html -

"... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type Sparrow missiles... "

"... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni090424_1_n.shtml

http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html -

"... Hyuga is equipped with 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and accommodates two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts for self defense...."

http://ukdf.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

The UK's 'disaster waiting to happen' warship build-programmes (Aircraft Carrier; Type-45 Destroyer and Astute submarine) urgently need to be objectively and thoroughly evaluated in terms of the capabilities of the resulting vessels in all three main warfare spheres:

IE- sub-surface, surface and airborne....

AND an objective assessment/evaluation needs to be carried out as to whether the vessels resulting from the UK's current warship build programmes will have sufficient capabilities to meet known and to-be-expected 21st century threats and duties...

If the warships reulting from the UK's current build-programmes are evaluated as not possessing sufficient capabilites to meet known and to be expected 21st century threats and duties- then succinct, detailed public recommendations should be made by the evaluator(s) deliniating:

1) what changes/additions/improvements to these vessels'/their current designs and particularly- their damage-control, communications and weapons systems are needed;

2) a to-be-expected range of costs; and

3) when should the changes/additions/improvements to these vessels/their design plans be facilitated...

The Royal Navy's existing and future required capabilities generally- over the coming 2-decades- need to be subjected to a similar comprehensive, objective evaluation process...

These evaluation processes- or at least their resulting report(s)- ought to be as open and publicly accessible as reasonably feasible... and preferably ought to be expeditedly carried out BEFORE THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION!!!

This, so as to prompt commitments- or expose lack of them- from prospective and running for re-election MP's...

________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Of course both aircraft carriers will take the F-35, that was never disputed, but Davies has not answered as to whether enough F-35s will be bought to equip both carriers at the same time. Buying three F-35Bs is all that the UK is obliged to do at this present time.
Michael - UK

Will they carry E2D Hawkeye aswell??


James - uk

Despite Quentin Davies assurances, rumours continued on the future of the Royal Navy's two future super
carriers. If confirmed, either the Queen Elizabeth or (as is most likely)the Prince of Wales will not be equipped with the planned JSF (Joint Strike fighter) currently under development in the United States. Ahead of the intended defence review, it is understood Navy Chief's may have already bowed to financial pressures and agreed to reassign one carrier for helicopter operations only. With this second super carrier relegated to a commando
carrier role, short thinking Government will no doubt commit the MoD to purchase 'off the shelf' a fleet of helicopters suited to these operations, something it has steadfastly refused to do in support of troops in Afghanistan. In effect this change of role may bring about an overall saving of £7.5 billion on the defence budget; but inevitably it will mean a cut in the planned procurement of the JSF to well short of the planned one hundred and forty aircraft (saving another estimated £6.00 billion). The question no one seems willing to ask or answer, is what happens when either of these super carriers is required to undergo refitting. There would be no inter-changeability, as the demands of operating fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft are significantly different, both in terms of equipment and crew-skills, so once again the UK's defence strategy will be plunged into disarray. Surely the Joint Chiefs (RAF/RN) and their advisors must now revisit the possibility of having a mixed complement of JSF (albeit in reduced numbers) and 'Sea' Typhoons plus an additional helicopter presence on each carrier; thereby achieving these same savings by a different route
Ian Dewar (RAF Ret''d) - Middleton, East Yorkshire

The Americans looked at ski jumps after the Falklands conflict. They came up with a 50,000-53,000 ton carrier concept with two bow catapults in a gentle two degree ski ramp. That concept would allow both STOVL & conventional versions of the F-35. STOVL for all weather air defence, conventional for long range strike.
John Hartley - Woking, England, UK

Can the myopic decision makers in the MOD sit down in a dark room for 5 mins and think through what their doing with this carrier project. Think about the 50 year lifespan these vessels are going to have and think about the capabilities they could give this country if you get this design right.

Judging by what I've read about this project the MOD seems to have lost the plot somewhat. Maybe I can help point them in the right direction.

Since we're building 2 full size carriers I fail to see why we have gone down the STOVL F35B route? Can anyone explain the logic behind this decision. Is it that the decision to buy F35B's is determining the design of the carrier or is it the design of the carrier is determining the choice of aircraft?

I cant see why you would rationally choose F35B and a STOVL carrier design.

The consequence of this peverse decision is that you lumber yourself with a more complex, more expensive, less capable aircraft. To accomodate the F35B you also end up neutering the design of your carrier so that it can no longer support fixed wing AEW aircraft. This leaves you with a less capable helicopter AEW which cant fly as high,cant see as far or stay on staion as long.

The result of poor AEW coverage makes your expensive carrier more vulnerable to attack. If your more vulnerable to attack then I guess removing armour and missile defences from the design probably isn't the cleverest thing to do.

How about this for an idea. Why doesn't the MOD choose the best, most capable design and then they manage project properly and the treasury just shuts and pays the bill.
We are already broke, billions have been spent propping up useless banks. Further billions of pounds are magically created through quantative easing. The carrier project just needs a small fraction of these resources but it delivers real benefits.
It gives this country an awesome capability to project power. It gives us a very big stick to wave at hostile countries. The world is changing, old powers are on the wane, new powers are emerging. The next 50 years will be less stable than the last 50. This country will be probably be at war again within that time period. If we get this carrier design and aircraft choice right, we might even win.
On the other hand if we leave it to the bean counters and the clueless politicians who knows?
David Bevan - UK