F-35 'keeps UK in military top rank'

HAVE YOUR SAY

01 November 2012

The US media is more upbeat with Hammond stating the cost of keeping one carrier in extended readiness is a 'modest' 70mn a year it would allow the UK to always have an available carrier.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121101/DEFREG01/311010003/Hammond-Keep-Both-Carriers-Royal-Navy-Service
Graham - High Wycombe

02 November 2012

Proper carrier strike with cats and traps would keep the UK in the military top rank, not the F35B.

This is wishful thinking on Hammond's part, It might be a 5th generation aircraft but its the least capable of those available and one of the most expensive.

One might ask why there was a Sunday Times report a few weeks ago saying the aircraft might only be available for RN use for only ten weeks a year. The reason is simple,they are so expensive we can afford enough to go between the two services.

If the MOD spent as much effort on proper research after the first UTURN, as they do now avoiding the truth, then we would have two CATOBAR carriers with a full compliment of aircraft and full fixed wing AEW. With some serious savings to boot. There would still be jobs for the UK, if they chose the f35 A for the RAF and F18 e/f for the RN. We would be in pocket by a considerable amount too.

That's not even mentioning that fewer than 12 embarked aircraft wouldn't be 12 for very long, should the worst happen.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

02 November 2012

Tim - Romsey

In my opinion one needs to define who would actually make up the "top rank"

USA, China, Russia as the top, then below them several nations, of which the UK is certainly one.

Take this with just how many countries there are in this world, then we are indeed in the top grouping of major powers, maybe not "Top Rank" but up there.

F35 is just one of a number of capabilites.

I tried to explain this to someone months ago by asking, in balance, who else has TLAM SSN capability, as just one example?

I agree with you re desire for CATOBAR carriers, but we mucked it up, so lets get on with what we are getting. Name the countries whom will have better?

USA, Russia, France, China maybe?
Not many on the list I think.

I also think that whoever in the MoD / RN who seriously thought that we would increase our carrier capability from, what 40 odd Sea Harriers in 2 Squadrons plus the OCU, with 8-12 being carried at one time to 2 carriers with wings of 30+F35 was in dreamland, as, without massive extra funding of this escalation in capability it would be the RAF's assets for the chop to pay for it.

This in turn kicks off the constant inter service bickering.

No doubt I will set off the anti RAF bashers on here now wanting to cut the RAF to pay for the carriers, but, excuse me, around 20 RAF combat Squadrons cut to 8?

If I recall correctly, in late 90's, 3 Harrier GR5, 3 Jaguar, 5 F3, 7 GR1, 2 SHAR squadrons.
Even that had already been cut in Frontline First in 95.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 November 2012

Daniele,

I agree with what you've said in all but one part-

Yes, the MOD/Politicians messed up the Carriers but with an expected lifespan of 40 odd years I don't think its too late to put right. Having both Carriers with CATS & TRAPS and the right Aircraft for each services OR, can be the only right decision.

Especially when your looking at a conservative saving of £2.62bn. The NAO have the figures now, and are due to announce their findings in the spring. Copies were sent as late as last Friday, to the PM, the Chancellor and MP's.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

02 November 2012

The F-35 is a superb aircraft,which we need if we wish to remain a world military power.It.s essential to continue with the program and not "cut back",not only for defence but to protect jobs.
Anthony Phelps - Hastins U.K.

02 November 2012

Hammond's talk at RUSI is further expounded here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hammond-underscores-joint-force-model-for-uk-f-35s-378452/

He also specifically mentions 'carriers' plural and quotes the cost of keeping second carrier at operational status as being £70m/yr. Well worthwhile in my opinion.
AW Employee - Yeovil

02 November 2012

"F-35 Keeps UK in Military Top Rank"...

The same can be said for any other country that purchases these aircraft...

But if the UK's F-35s are assembled overseas from components mainly designed and produced overseas and if the UK's F-35s are not powered by engines which British companies designed and built- F-35s will make the UK look like a 'follower nation'... a country of ambitionless toadies....
===========

The UK's current coalition govt has been appallingly silent about the cancellation of the F-35's Rolls-Royce/GE "F136 engine programme" late last year...

Meanwhile Italy gets an F-35 Fighter-Bomber assembly plant to assemble its and other countries' F-35s (not just F-35 tail sections!!), while the UK, apparently, gets its 'fully assembled' F-35's... WITHOUT British engines... from a Texas, U.S.A. assembly plant:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120212/DEFREG01/302120012/Italy-F-35-Cuts-Announcement-Possible-Week
============

PURCHASERS OF F-35's SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN 'COMPETING' ENGINES: UK GOVT (&/OR UK plc) SHOULD FUND COMPLETION OF THE ROLLS-ROYCE/GE F136 ENGINE PROGRAMME!!

The F-35 Fighter-Bomber is designed as a single-engine aircraft, but was originally intended to have 2 interchangeable engines:

- the F135 made by Pratt and Whitney; and

- the F136 made by a Rolls-Royce/GE consortium.

While in the final stages of development, the F136 was cancelled last April-2011 by a defence budget vote in the U.S. Congress- against loud objections by many US Senators and Representatives and despite the US's Government Accountability Office and other financial-oversight bodies recommending against this...

Despite the loss of govt funding, Rolls-Royce and GE 'self-funded' the F136 engine programme until last December-2011, when both companies pulled the plug... possibly due to delays in the F-35 project and uncertainties whether they would receive timely returns on their F136 investments...

In 2006 when attempts were first made by the US's Department of Defense and Congress to cancel the F136 engine programme, the UK's previous Labour govt had apparently threatened to pull out of the F-35 Fighter-Bomber project altogether if the F136 engine programme was cancelled:

- 2006: http://www.govexec.com/defense/2006/03/british-demand-better-access-to-fighter-jet-program/21364/
- 2006: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA454434 (page #8)
- 2009: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf (pages 11- 13)

Similar to the U.S. govt, the U.K.'s coalition govt states that it wants to cultivate U.K. jobs and innovation- aimed at the export market...

->>> If the US's Congress and White House are not prepared to approve continued funding to complete development of the Rolls-Royce/GE F136 engine programme, why couldn't the UK front the comparatively paltry sums (roughly £1.5B over 4-years) required for completion of the F136 engine????

If this was done it would enable purchasers of F-35s to be able to chose between 2 'competing' engines for their aircraft: driving down F-35s' engines' costs while improving quality and reliability...

The UK's coalition govt states that it wants to cultivate UK jobs and innovation- aimed at the export market...

Surely, the value to the UK of F136 engine (and sub-assembly parts) exports and the consequential world-wide promotion of the UK's high-technology business capabilities would compensate for any taxpayer funds put towards the completion of the F136 engine programme??

Why is the UK printing hundreds-of-billions of 'quantitative easing' money - just to bail-out previously unethical banks and to make low-interest loans available to small businesses??
Roderick V. Louis, - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 November 2012

Links to reference documents re earlier submitted comment:

F136 ROLLS-ROYCE/GE ENGINE PROGRAMME:

1) US Congressional Research Service F136 Engine project report, January-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41131.pdf

2) US Congressional Research Service F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, April 26-2011:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30563_20110426.pdf or
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf -
(references to the F136 Engine programme on pages (in Acrobat Reader) # 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21, 28, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 49, 50 and 54

3) US Congressional Research Service report-"F-35 Alternate Engine (F136) Program: Background and Issues", April 20-2011:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41131.pdf

4) US Congressional Research Service report- "Proposed termination of F-35 (F-136) Alternate Engine program", February 18-2009:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf

5) US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F136 Engine project report, September 14-2011:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97736.pdf or
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11903r.pdf (Page #2 in acrobat Reader... )

6) US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee hearing March 15-2011 (VIDEO):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwKKt4i5A0

7) "GE Rolls-Royce fighter engine team completes (F136) STOVL testing":
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/news/2008/ge_rr_fighter_engine.jsp

8) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f136-engine-more-lives-than-disco-03070/

9) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/GERR-F136-Jet-Engine-Passes-Critical-Design-Review-04741/

------------------------------

F-35 FIGHTER/BOMBER PROJECT:

10) US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, March 20-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf

11) US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, May 19-2011:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126245.pdf or
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11677t.pdf

12) US Congressional Research Service F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, February 16-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
Roderick V. Louis, - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 November 2012

The UK adopting a 2-carrier policy would be good policy if the previous Labour govt had not imposed so many severe deletions to the then planned carriers' designs- in order to save money at the expense of the vessels' offensive and ship self-defence capabilities and their future adaptability and versatility...

The UK's 2 planned big deck aircraft carriers- capital ships that were (via leading edge radars, sensors and ship self-defence systems) intended to be the most situationally aware and best defended carriers on the planet as well as being easily and cheaply adaptable to be fitted- after launch- with aircraft launch catapults are now set to be among the world's most 'deaf, dumb and blind' (comparatively) aircraft carriers and won't be fit-able with aircraft launch catapults.... making these urgently needed vessels unable to accommodate and deploy this century's soon-to-be-defacto-standard naval strike aircraft: Unmanned Carrier Air Vehicles (UCAVs)...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cv-ucavs-the-return-of-ucas-03557/

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/neuron-ucav-project-rolling-down-the-runway-updated-01880/
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

I was a massive advocate of the F35C and EMAL's for the carriers, I like you thought the cost to convert, especially at the build stage was both affordable and good value for money of the course of the carriers 40 to 50 year service life.

However, if it means us keeping both carriers in Royal Navy service, then I think lets go with it, as long as they purchase enough aircraft to equip them properley (even if it means surging aircraft in times of tension).

I would have loved the flexability that EMALS would have given us with the different types of aircarft available to be launched, E2, Growler, Viking, to allow better imperoperability with our NATO allies.
Rob - Telford

02 November 2012

The UK's current coalition govt has been appallingly silent about the cancellation of the F-35's Rolls-Royce/GE "F136 engine programme" late last year...

Meanwhile Italy gets an F-35 Fighter-Bomber assembly plant to assemble its and other countries' F-35s (not just F-35 tail sections!!), while the UK, apparently, gets its 'fully assembled' F-35's... WITHOUT British engines... from a Texas, U.S.A. assembly plant:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120212/DEFREG01/302120012/Italy-F-35-Cuts-Announcement-Possible-Week

Similar to the U.S. govt, the U.K.'s coalition govt states that it wants to cultivate U.K. jobs and innovation- aimed at the export market...

->>> If the US's Congress and White House are not prepared to approve continued funding to complete development of the Rolls-Royce/GE F136 engine programme, why couldn't the UK front the comparatively paltry sums (roughly £1.5B over 4-years) required for completion of the F136 engine????

If this was done it would enable purchasers of F-35s to be able to chose between 2 'competing' engines for their aircraft: Pratt and Whitney's 'F135' and the Rolls-Royce/GE 'F136'... driving down individual F-35s' engines' costs while improving quality and reliability...

The UK's coalition govt states that it wants to cultivate UK jobs and innovation- aimed at the export market...

Surely, the value to the UK of F136 engine (and sub-assembly parts) exports and the consequential world-wide promotion of the UK's high-technology business capabilities would compensate for any taxpayer funds put towards the completion of the F136 engine programme??

Why is the UK printing hundreds-of-billions of 'quantitative easing' money - just to bail-out previously unethical banks and to make low-interest loans available to small businesses??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 November 2012

Anthony Phelps-

Don't fall into the same trap as Hammond and generically talk about the F35, That's partly the reason were in this mess.

No one doubts the F35 A or C are not fantastic aircraft. But the F35 B isn't right for the UK. It restricts the RAF, they need the A model and the Navy need the C model or F18 /e/f. But even that is not the real reason we need CATOBAR carriers. To properly protect 65,000 ton carriers and their task group, you need proper AEW, that can only be supplied by a fixed wing type.

EMALS was the wrong choice of catapult plain and simple, there is another option called ICCALS that would be cheaper and more powerful. It could be still fitted for the same price as the last UTURN on both carriers.

Questions still need to be asked why the conversion price was quoted at £2bn when it could have been achieved for less than £500million. If Hammond is meant to be a financial hawk how did he miss that little point.

To highlight the F35 failings there are reports that the F22 is still a far better aircraft, even though its already in service.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

02 November 2012

Tim - Romsey

And I agree too that 2 conventional carriers are the best solution.

But fact is they will not stump up the money to convert both, and we want both, badly.

HMS Ocean is going too and we need a LPH type vessel.

Ideally a like for like replacement but I think MoD are going down the route of using the carriers for that too, so if it is a choice of 1 only and EMALS / F35C or 2 with F35B I go with the 2.

If it turns out we get only 1 with F35B we are truly screwed, and Labour can take a massive part of the blame for that.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 November 2012

Too many people are knocking F-35B performance. It may fall short of the payload/range of the A/C model but will still be a quantum leap in capability for the UK and far in advance of any adversary we are likely to meet.

Also we will mitigate some of the issues by using it from a QE with 240m run followed by a 40m ramp allowing to take off pretty much loaded up. The long deck also allows SRVL in cases where there are remaining stores and/or fuel or VL if not which in that case allows all weather operability.

Stop carping, F-35B is going to be a good aircraft to operate from our QE carriers both of which it seems will be in service this way which would not be the case if we go cat and trap. How useless is an FAA F-35C when the 'sole' carrier is in refit!
Graham - High Wycombe

02 November 2012

Tim has stated that UK can have 2 carriers with Cats & Traps and more F18 aircraft for the prices we are currently paying for F35Bs. F35 aircraft are still being developed and present considerable risk. F18 aircraft are today being flown by RN pilots and will be interoperable with allies. Why has the Government chosen the worst value for money, operational value solution? Is it because there has not been a Naval CDS or VCDS since 2003?
christopher - Guildford

02 November 2012

Graham,

Oh dear! Your missing the point- We could have both carriers with cat and traps for £500million. Ive seen the proposal from the Catapult designer and BEFORE the dates Hammond mentions.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

02 November 2012

Graham, As for SRVL i suggest you take a look at Sharkey Wards blog on the subject. He asks the reader to imagine landing a 18 ton petrol tanker on a wet, slippery and pitching deck between rows of highly priced vehicles... disaster is the only outcome.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

03 November 2012

The F35 may be the best strike aircraft that it's possible to buy "off the shelf", maybe even the only one as far as the UK is concerned. But it can't be said to represent the state of the art in terms of capability. A stealth UCAV would easily out-perform it in it's primary mission.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

03 November 2012

It is in some ways regretable that we have opted for the B version. However if it means we keep POW and fully operate this ship it is a huge plus. It gives purpose to the whole defence strategy.
Why the UK should not now grow much closer links with say the various Asian economies and especially the RAN who will all have ships capable of operating the same B version; would be an opportunity missed if we let it.
There are very large trade defence opportunities in that part of the world. I only hope Bae looks to SE Asia where there is much more growth than in laggardly EU.
4thwatch - Lymington, UK

04 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

So how come a £100mn study found it would cost nearly £2bn to convert one carrier and that we wouldn't be able to do both. I think what you saw was overoptimistic.
Graham - High Wycombe

05 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

"To highlight the F35 failings there are reports that the F22 is still a far better aircraft, even though its already in service."

I wouldn't disagree that the F-22 Raptor is better than F-35 Lightning II, but there are 3 reasons why F-22 Raptor cannot fulfill the UK requirement for next gen fighter/bomber.

1. Raptor is an amazing aircraft but only at 1 role, that of air superiority. While the US can afford to operate aircraft with just 1 role, UK cannot. As the UK desperately needs naval strike, CAP and recce the F-22 Raptor is not the appropriate platform for the UK. It would also require significant modifications to allow it to operate from deck of a carrier and it would have to be CATOBAR.

2. F-22 Raptor also has major issues with its stealth coatings which would not withstand the rigours of naval operation. These issues have been addressed in the design of F-35 and will significantly reduce the maintenance burden.

3. Finally, the US will not export F-22 to anyone (Japan has tried for many years to get them). End of discussion!
AW Employee - Yeovil

05 November 2012

AW EMPLOYEE - YEOVIL

f.22 was due to be extended in a similar way to USN hornets i know i have kept a cut out from AFM from about 10 years it would be konwn as the FB22 and was going to offered to the RAF as the answer to the FOAS programme.

Graham - High Wycombe

The cost of 2 billion for conversion cost was for a uk coversion kit with as yet unproven uk equipment and as ever with the same uk cost overruns & the usual fuck up. The cost quoted originally was for the US emals with all the work and cost risk assessment done in the USA.
andy - solihull

05 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

I have read it and he is being 'economical with the truth' about SRVL to justify his opinion on buying F-18 E/F.

He is referring to the worst sea state conditions and in that case the choice would be between pure VL or SRVL you would go VL and if you had to dump fuel and or ordnance so be it. In fact between landing a conventional aircraft with a trap or VL then an F-35B using VL would be the safest form of landing in such a sea state. It could even be said that operating an F-35B could be possible whereas operating a conventional cat and trap would be too dangerous to fly. He seems to conveniently forget that you have a choice between SRVL and VL still with an F-35B.

Beware of a persons prejudice when they want to justify what they want Tim.
Graham - High Wycombe

05 November 2012

andy - solihull

As I understood it General Atomics were quoting 500mn to sell us EMALS and the rest was the cost of installation and conversion.
Graham - High Wycombe

05 November 2012

Graham,

I'm afraid not, the figures i've seen were prepared by the LEAD engineer for CVN77, The cost of ICCALS is 1/5th that of the US EMALS price. The amount of alteration work to install is only 20 spaces, not 90 as in EMALS and the CATS themselves only require work done to the flight deck. You might like to ask where they got the overinflated price of £2bn in the first place.

As for Sharkey Wards Statements, there is no one better qualified to talk about deck landings in the UK, except for Winkle Brown.

AW employee-

I wouldn't disagree with your statements, I was merely pointing out the F35 is not the best thing since sliced bread.

Just so you are aware, we have working on the costings of this since MAY and NO ONE in the NOA, MOD or Treasury have yet challenged them.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

05 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

Despite Sharkey's record the fact remains that an F-35B has the option of both SRVL or VL and that there is no safer way of landing on a ship than vertically in any sea state!
He talks as if SRVL would be the only option which plainly it is not so his 'record' is meaningless in this case. I read the article in his blog so I know to what you refer.
You cannot get away from the fact that both SRVL and VL are an option for an F-35B and his blog talks of SRVL only in severe sea state conditions and comes to the conclusion that we would only therefore be able to operate in fair conditions which is untrue.

Like I said be aware of someone's prejudices when reading their opinion.
Graham - High Wycombe

06 November 2012

Graham,

I understand what your saying. BUT even Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O'Bryan has said that most F-35B landings will be purely conventional in order to reduce stress on the vertical lift components. Conventional operations also reduce the risk of self-induced foreign object damage. Is this a vote of confidence? That leaves SRVL and Sharkeys point.

I Know Sharkeys Politics sometimes get the better of him but hes only defending his service, might not be the same said for some RAF personnel too?

Besides that, if the navy were to get CATOBAR now or in the future, would that not give the RAF an aircraft more suited to their OR?
It would certainly leave the Navy options for a more flexible air wing. I still believe that the F35b is a restrictive design that in twenty years time will leave two carriers with no aircraft to fly off.

The plain fact is the MOD did NOT look at all the options and are now attempting to cover the uturn by stating cost savings and that simply is not true.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

06 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

Yes most F-35B landings will be conventional as you would only land vertically if necessary not if you have a runway or a long deck where SRVL is possible if conditions allow.

SRVL does see downward thrust used at the last moment as speed is reduced from 120kt to 70kt before touchdown but is for much less than a pure VL.

As for foreign object ingestion that is not the case on a carrier flight deck that is referring to unprepared and dispersed locations on land so NO it does not just leave SRVL on a QE it means there is ALWAYS the choice between SRVL or VL! So all sea states can be flown thus it is not a 'fair weather' navy as Sharkey suggests.

I would agree that the F-35C would best suit both the FAA and RAF better however I think you greatly underestimate the F-35B.

I would certainly prefer ANY F-35 variant to the F-18 E/F.

We are developing new generation stand off weapons that will fit in the F-35B internal weapons bay. LM are developing stealth external under wing fuel tanks. So an F-35B could theoretically fly from Lands End and hit a target in John O' Groats so do you think the F-35B is under performing!

That's why I think it better to have BOTH carriers operationally capable so that we always have a carrier available. I believe that is only possible by sticking with the current design and believe it out-ways having a sole carrier with F-35C which is what we would otherwise end up with.
Graham - High Wycombe

06 November 2012

Graham,
Shall we agree to differ on this.

To close this out, let me say this.
I'm sure you would accept that if we could have two CATOBAR carriers with fixed wing AEW and the F35c, at a date when we can afford them and F18/e/f until we can. With the RAF getting the F35A from the start, you wouldn't object.

Well that's what we are proposing and it is feasible within Hammonds own limits on cost and time.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

07 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

Agreed just can't see how your figures can be correct that's all. If what your saying is true then how was it missed in the £100m review we have just had.
Graham - High Wycombe

07 November 2012

Your a `gentleman Graham.

If you want to find out more please look here: http://www.defencesynergia.co.uk/DefenceSynergia/Aircraft_Carriers.html

You may well ask how they missed it, the answer we've had from the MOD is "because it wasn't offered". Which is absolute rubbish, because I know for FACT it was offered to the Naval attache in Washington, in the autumn of 2011.
If you have any questions please feel free to use the info email address on the website and I'll do my utmost to answer it.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

07 November 2012

Graham - Sharkey Ward flew Phantoms from Carriers as well as Harriers. I think he may have done an exchange with USN. Neither the USN nor the RN are 'fair weather' navies. Without cats & traps the only AEW is helo borne thus limited surveillance range. In the Falklands the lack of a proper strike carrier resulted in the loss of 8 ships.Are the UK prepared to sacrifice the few ships we still have. Are you a pilot or working with Industry?
christopher Samuel - Guildford / Defencesynergia

07 November 2012

There is some prejudice in the following remarks as I am the inventor of the ICCALS internal combustion catapult which I have offered to the MOD as an addition to the present ramp launch. This adds a waist catapult and trap and adds true strike capability and interoperability without doing a redesign as the catapult is generally self-contained and makes no demands upon anything below the 01(1)deck. Additionally the added cost for two ICCALS catapults is far less than one F35b. Speaking of which, with Obama being re-elected, the US Navy is going to have to downsize or cut budget somewhere. The F35b and for that matter, the entire family of F35s makes a more than obvious target. What happens to the Queen Elizabeth with no cats or traps aboard or F35b planes to be constructed?

The F35b is not a strike aircraft, particularly, with its limited range, is not available to a land base until the carrier brings the aircraft close enough to the battle area that the land based landing site is within reach, which puts the carrier within reach of enemy shore based missiles. Additionally, the carrier with no catapult capability has to use helicopter carried radar to detect incoming weapons. With the close proximity to land bases/conflict area and a highly degraded radar capability (IE,. blind) the carrier will fall victim to the old fighter pilot phrase, "he who is seen first dies"

Is this what the MOD really wants? Or they simply operating on either incorrect or deliberately misleading information?? I would think that patriotism would drive MOD to want to make the best possible decision, which would drive them to seriously consider the ICCALS as it is a key enabler for a strike and joint operations capability for your carriers along with the ability to carry and launch the F35c and the F18 E/F strike aircraft with their much greater range, increased weapons payload and the ability to launch the C3 radar planes for a much better radar capability.
Clint Stallard
Clinton Stallard - Hampton Virginia Stallard Associates

07 November 2012

christopher Samuel - Guildford / Defencesynergia

I believe there is a project called crowsnest looking into the issue of AEW in the future.

We could use the 8 spare Merlin HM1 not being converted to HM2 standard and retrofit the current Sea King AEW kit however this may be a stop gap as I believe the platform mentioned as ideal is the V-22 Osprey. This would give range and ceiling similar to the Hawkeye.

I am very aware of Sharkey Ward's record and the Falklands war in general so know how much lack of AEW cost us in that war from which the Sea King AEW was conceived. Even as a stop gap the Merlin will be a huge improvement on the Sea King but my hope is that the V-22 will eventually be chosen.
Graham - High Wycombe

07 November 2012

christopher Samuel - Guildford / Defencesynergia

P.S in sharkey's blog he states that SRVL will limit us to being able to operate F-35B in only good sea state conditions (fair weather). My point is that this is being economical with the truth as you still have the option of VL in a bad sea state.
Graham - High Wycombe

08 November 2012

Graham - Hiogh Wycombe

the v.22 is a better option than merlin on that point you are correct, however can you or anyone else tell me how much it would cost to develop, i suspect a lot more than the cost of converting both carriers to cat n trap and buying off the shelf E2D.

With regard to your point about it being missed in the review i personally would not believe a word anyone at westminster (cons/lab/lib/ or the coalition)said we only have their word about the cost but people with greater knowledge on this subject than you or i have all said they are wrong.

I believe it is common sense that if we are building the carriers then we should equip them correctly lives depend on it.
andy - Solihull

08 November 2012

andy - Solihull

Actually I don't think it would take that much to develop, you can easily incorporate an AESA radar on V-22 as you can Merlin there are a number of options (look how easily they are incorporated into the Saab 340 or the Gulfstream for air forces, same would apply to Osprey).

I am only guessing but as Sea King is retired in 2016 the 8 Merlin's being held back from the HM2 upgrade will simply get the same equipment as a stop gap while V-22 will be the longer term replacement with an all new package based on an AESA design. This would be done to push spend into a fiscal year the MoD thinks it can afford it which is how they think.

On the question of carrier conversion I do admit I was not fully informed about ICCALS however I have read up on it at:

http://www.launch-systems.com/The-Design-History-of-ICCALS.html

Perhaps it was not considered for a number of reasons which I am trying to fathom but a few possibilities come into my head.

1. Did they think it was not proven and therefore too big a risk?
2. Were they worried about safety as it requires JP5 jet fuel to operate.

They do seem rather flimsy excuses if so for not considering it as I think the review probably only looked at EMALS hence such a big redesign would have been necessary with all the cost whereas ICCALS would not. I would certainly like to know the answer.
Graham - High Wycombe

08 November 2012

Graham,
I can enlighten you on a few facts about ICCALS and as Clint Stallard, the designer is now watching this discussion, I'd better get my facts right.

ICCALS was first tested in 1959, (Launching aircraft). It was due to be fitted on CVN65, in fact she put to sea with and still has parts of the system on board to this day. It was killed off by Adm Rickover, during his crusade for nuclear powered steam turbines. Saying the reactors could provide the power for steam cats, which is true they could. The cats were dockside ready to be fitted when the cancellation order came.

As aircraft grew heavier they was a need for a more powerful system, hence EMALS but ICCALS was also looked at again.

It was again considered for CVN77 when EMALS was late and not working properly. I think I'm right in saying it was wanted as no 4 cat for at sea testing.

At the time NASA were looking at vertical launching rockets with a catapult and they funded the a lot of the project. Somewhere after that NASA got involved with EMALS too and the funding was dropped for ICCALS.

The early versions on the catapult used fairly dangerous oxidants to enrich air for combustion, that has since been redesigned to compressed air with enrichment by swing absorption. The JP5 is at deck level anyway for refueling the airgroup so I cant see any reason why they would baulk at that. As for risk, you would have to ask the MOD that one but after nine months of investigation I cant find any. AND I might add I don't get paid for it either.

On the AEW front, you are correct in saying that the sea king system is being reused. The difference in fixed wing is that its in a pressurized airframe that can operate further from the carrier. Therefore not only has it a larger "view", but operating farther out its safer for the carrier, as the AEW is likely to be a primary target and one any enemy would want to take out first.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

08 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

If you look at the link in my earlier post about two thirds down 'fourth iteration':

"This eliminates all of the requirements for combustors, JP5, water and ancillary hardware, providing the simplest possible system for launching planes as the only addition would be a throttling valve that would allow the launch of the full range of manned and unmanned air vehicles."

If this is possible with the propulsion system for a QE carrier then it would have allowed F-35C which is actually the best fit for both FAA and RAF. Perhaps Clint can enlighten us on this matter.

However for balance you should also read the RUSI article:

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4F6C9D5A2F291
Graham - High Wycombe

08 November 2012

Graham- Yes I have read it, I'm a member of RUSI too. Elizabeth Quintana is senior research fellow at RUSI for air power and works closely with the Air staff - You might like to read Lee Willett's or Nick Childs articles written for RUSI at about the same time, for balance, as both contradict her.
http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=commentary&ref=C4F9AB2B64D19C#.UJvwkIX20QU
http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=commentary&ref=C4F9A68FA1E4B7#.UJvwtoX20QU

Her third reason to say the B was a better choice was this:
"Thirdly, aircraft with arrestor hooks can get stuck on the flight deck blocking the deck for other aircraft wishing to land, this means that naval aircraft always return with fuel in case they need to loiter; modified combat aircraft are also available near the carrier to provide tactical tanking in an emergency". I would make two comments on that, hooks get stuck? funny you don't hear that happen in the USN that much. Secondly I would say all aircraft have to carry reserve fuel so that's not that relevant.

Yes there is a fourth version of ICCALS but its the third version he is offering the MOD.

Clint could probably say more, but I think there is some question on what happens to ship power when you bleed off HP air directly off the Gas Turbines. Clint has estimated that you can launch a 70 thousand pound plane at a 3 gravity acceleration over the entire launch stroke, which gives a higher speed off the end of the cat than current steam cats. But that version has not been proven and time is short.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

09 November 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Tim Dainton - Romsey has been competely on the mark with his explanatiion of this alternate catapult, the ICCALS, and I thank him for his efforts and well written comments on the subject. Actually the carrier already has a number of combustors which are attached to aircraft.
The Queen Elizabeth has a diesel plant and thus has no capability to launch aircraft unless one of three things happen.
The first is that a large steam generator is added to the ship to power up the steam accumulators for the current C13-2 US steam catapult. This would take an extensive redesign for the steam generator and the large water distillant plant which is required to supply the steam generator as the system does not recover the roughly 1,000 gallons of water to accomplish a single launch. (The ICCALS captures the combustion generated water and eliminates the requirement for a large distillant plant.)
The second, of course, would be installation of EMALS which would require a number of large generators in the propulsion machinery requiring a considerable redesign and redo of what is already done, and the addition of 6 large motor generators that weight 80,000 pounds each 50+ feet above the waterline plus extensive cabling and a number of control cabinets, with the total weigh add for each EMALS catapult would be above 500,000 pounds weight. The EMALS catapult was offered by General Atomics for 500,000 pounds with another 1,500,000 was estimated for the redesign and construction rework which made cats and traps unfeasible due to cost.
The third option is the ICCALS internal combustion catapult. This catapult makes gaining the strike capability a relatively simple and inexpensive task.
Modern drive gas generators (in place of reactor generated steam) generators can be designed or bought off the shelf and marinized. This makes no demand on ships services or the propulsion plant. The cost of the catapult each should be less than $50 million installed which is approximately .025 the cost of the EMALS system installed. This system is much evolved over my original patent in that is smaller, simpler, lighter, much more powerful and much less expensive than EMALS, so much so that the value for money proposition is obvious.
I think that the political class will require considerable persuasion to make a change to the ship at this point. So,it would seem to require the point driven home that this is a capacity enhancement of the ship that they had selected, and that they would be brilliant in their choice to make this addition to the ship.

Thanks for letting me join the conversation.
Clinton Stallard - Hampton-Newport News, Virginia USA

09 November 2012

I think something else needs to be said here too.

DefenceSynergia, nor Stallard Associate's have no wish to make the PM, Mr Hammond, the Government or the MOD look incompetent or bad in any way. We are looking at this from the value for money and capability of our armed forces - As an enabler for strategic thought and direction.

We have taken great pains to word all our correspondence towards the Government in a positive way even calling the Uturn's "revisions".

If there was at any point in our time for a Government to show just how much they do care about our armed forces, the safety of the public and due diligence towards the public purse, this is it.

When Mr Hammond announced the Revision back to STOVL, he said "the facts have changed" - Well Mr Hammond they have changed again.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

09 November 2012

Clinton Stallard - Hampton-Newport News, Virginia USA / Tim Dainton - Romsey

Thanks for the informative posts on ICCALS.

I actually think the MoD envisages that the UK would use the QE carriers in a littoral environment rather like the USMC will utilise their F-35B from for example USS Wasp rather than in a carrier strike role.
Therefore they are assuming that we would only do so in a benign environment which either already exists or is created by USN strike carriers in which case they must consider we would only go to war as an ally alongside the US in such a scenario.

Beyond the mid 2040's and F-35 the MoD must either consider that the likelihood is that if another STOVL type aircraft does not by then exist the carrier could be fitted with an ICCALS type system or operate in a STOBAR configuration.
Graham - High Wycombe

09 November 2012

Graham, I fear your right that they would have to operate alongside allied assets. If so where does that leave us being able to operate alone?

Then there is the extra 20,0000 tonnes of carrier that in all honesty, I cannot see they need for a USMC type LPH role. That I have to say lacks somewhat in joined up thinking and the carriers fitness for purpose.

Of course they could be thinking of combining both roles of carrier strike and LPH and not replace Ocean! Further reducing the fleet to even more unworkable numbers.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

09 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

That's exactly how I think they envisage using the carriers in a joint LPH and Carrier role. Whether they still replace Ocean or not I'm not sure but that may well be their thinking.

I really don't think they believe we will be in a go it alone Falklands type situation ever again but only operate alongside the US. However this is a bit like the October 2010 SDSR stating we would not fight any new wars for 10 years and then the Arab spring happened and we were at war in Libya by March 2011 !

You just don't know what's going to come in off left field and catch you out and the US may well decide to sit it out while we are unable to.

However on the plus side I am a lot more optimistic about the F-35B capabilities as we will be using it than you. We can mitigate most things and so I think the MoD believes even if that very small possibility does arise we will actually still likely have more capability than any opponent. I only hope if it does they are correct!
Graham - High Wycombe

10 November 2012

An internal combustion catapult is not a new idea in principle, the Germans used them to launch thousands of V1/Fi103 cruise missiles during World War 2. But the concept clearly has potential, in that it allows an aircraft to be launched with a minimum of equipment. Essentially all that is needed is a slotted tube, a piston and something to provide the propulsive force, which can be a mixture of fuel and oxidiser in liquid or gaseous form. Such a system can be installed in a ship with minimal impact on it's design, or retrofitted with minimum alteration.
If we were going to take this route with the CVF ships, I would say that it would make more sense to use such a system to launch a more useful aircraft or UCAV than the range-challenged, payload-challenged F35C.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

12 November 2012

Graham- I agree with your last post up till you mention the F35B.

The whole point is we need strong, affordable carrier(s) and a strong airgroup in affordable and sufficient numbers to make them into a workable asset.

The F35B may well turn out to be a good aircraft, I hope it is, but we simply can not afford it in the numbers required nor does it fit both NAVY and RAF OR's. The A model and F18/e/f are both considerably cheaper and do fit the OR's. With the use of ICCALS we could have two CATOBAR carriers for a fraction of the price of EMALS, to enable the use of F18 e/f and fixed wing AEW.

There has even been some studies with both the F18 and E2 to utilize STOBAR with findings showing they need some minor alterations to the undercarriage.

40 for a first buy of F35B might give you 28 continuously available for both RAF and RN use, making a surge to 36 for the operational carrier impossible. Therefore they will need to buy another tranche to achieve the numbers required, making buying F18e/f even more sense. Let alone the fact the F35b is 25% more expensive than the F35A and 50% more expensive than the F18e/f.

The F18/e/f might not be 5th generation but it will do for now, until we can afford the C or its replacement.

The A model for the RAF is the best choice all round except for one little point, and that is the MOD's restricting two fast jet policy. That policy, with the choice of EMALS helped get us in this mess, in the first place.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

12 November 2012

Tim Dainton - Romsey

The two fast jet does not cover variants, it is types so operating a mixed fleet of F-35A and F-35B would count as one type.

Also I think you will find the F-18E/F will be too vulnerable.

I like the idea of STOBAR though and wonder could the F-35C operate from a QE in a STOBAR configuration if so we could revert to either all F-35C or a mix of A and C models even.

We are ordering 48 in a first tranche and the 2015 SDSR will decide final numbers and type.
Graham - High Wycombe

13 November 2012

J Southworth
You are correct in your assessment of the ease of installing or retrofitting an internal combustion catapult, especially one using the current C13 steam catapult launch engine.

This may be of interest.
Popular Science - Jun 1960 - Page 16 - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?id=1CoDAAAAMBAJ
Vol. 176, No. 6 - Magazine
will not have steam-powered catapults, but will use a new internal-combustion catapult power plant, now waiting at dockside to be installed. Developed by ...

The think that is truely ironic is that the catapult for the Enterprise was supposed to be an internal combustion catapult but was replaced by steam per Adm Rickover. The current plan is to use the launch engines from the Enterprise which is going out of service. Thus parts of what should have been an internal combustion catapult (C14) 50 years ago may now be part of the catapult for the Queen Elizabeth. I have made a claim for a couple of these catapults with the people who will dismantle the Enterprise. As they are 18" diameter, they will not fit on the Nimitz class carriers, so they assure me that there should not be much of a problem to obtain the parts. This is a substantial reduction in installed cost which should be interesting to someone in MOD.
Clinton Stallard - Hampton Virginia Stallard Associates

13 November 2012

It must be remembered the F-35B will have performance specifications which exceed the previous Harrier (Sea and Ground Attack) versions. The fair weather comment is made earlier by another entry is valid to the point, it is widely accepted during the Falklands in '82, there were days when the weather would have prohibited normal CTOL carrier operations. Of course the flexibility of STOVL aircraft must always be balanced against the combat radius and weapons payload capabilities.

In a perfect world, I would argue for top rank status the UK would have to have both CTOL and STOVL capabilities; so it is easy to see why the USN is the only true super power at sea, as they deploy both CVNs with CTOL fast air while having their LHA/Ds with STOVL fast air groups. The other navies in the world, including the RN are well behind in maritime aviation amongst other capabilities; except probably minesweeping capabilities.

I would prefer both the CVF's with CTOL fast air, with HMS Ocean replaced by two dedicated LPDs with STOVL fast air. But the UK government lead by the MoD do not have such vision to invest in UK high end manufacturing (which would result in export orders most likely).

The UK based EMCAT programme would have produced a viable EMALS alternative had weight been added behind the project (of course with the UK continuing the CTOL path). The CVFs will be fitted with a gas turbine and diesel engine propulsion system driving electric motors. This system would have been capable of delivering the electrical requirements for a magnetic launching system, with the view, that modifications could have further increased electrical generation specifications for any additional requirements (during refits with new systems no envisioned at build). Steam or other launch systems were never seriously entertained as been obsolete technology. I have worked on linear motor and inverter technology; and as I have said before, the UK was getting ripped off for the EMALS unit was procuring from the US for CVF QE. However it must be remember the likelihood was CVF PoW would have been fitted with a complete UK based system in build; with QE at either her first or major midlife refit would have received the same system if it met specification during operations.

There is no doubt the CVF programme has been watered down since '98 when it was first started. The SAMPSON and Sea Viper systems have been omitted for lighter (re: cheaper) alternatives in Artisan and pure gun based Phalanx / DS30B combinations. The plus is, at least the programme is in the delivery phase, other projects around the world are less fortunate...
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

13 November 2012

Shaun NZ- Ive just had an freedom of information act question answered on HMS Ocean, they intend running her on till at least 2018, but to date, they have not planned a replacement of any sort.

So that leads me to think both POW and QE will have a LPH role. If that's the case then the MOD and the Ministers are misleading parliament and the British public by continuing to call the new ships, Carrier strike.

I've spoken to Coverteam earlier in the year and the MOD about EMCATS, the MOD say it was not far enough advanced nor costed, yet Coverteam say it was. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.

The F35B might well be a step change over the Harrier, but as you said in your post its not CTOL and that does restrict operations.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

13 November 2012

Too right Shaun.
Graham your faith in US or any other Navy withy Air Defence capability support is risky. Where were the US at Suez, Falklands & Lybia. These were all before the USN shift of emphasis
to the Far East.
You may argue that not too many littoral nations can challenge the RN amphibious carriers / T45 capabilities but it only needs a few to get through. Remember the Ark Royal and her sowrdfisher!
Indeed in the last war the RN probably lost more ships to air attack than torpedoes!
Christopher - Guildford

14 November 2012

Christopher - Guildford

I point you to my earlier post of 9th November which perhaps you missed:

"I really don't think they (MoD) believe we will be in a go it alone Falklands type situation ever again but only operate alongside the US. However this is a bit like the October 2010 SDSR stating we would not fight any new wars for 10 years and then the Arab spring happened and we were at war in Libya by March 2011 !

You just don't know what's going to come in off left field and catch you out and the US may well decide to sit it out while we are unable to."
Graham - High Wycombe

14 November 2012

Graham
Thank you. It doesn't matter what sort of battle they are not going to fight. They dont get to choose. The important point is what our allies are saying. Are the USA saying that they will support UK whenever it needs Air Defence.
I fear that this is a symptom of Government at present, they think only 'inwardly' not what effects result for us the 'customers'. Responsibility & accountability are words that need stressing.
Thank you all for a very rewarding discussion. I hope the establishment reads some of it.
Christopher - Guildford

14 November 2012

Wouldn't everyone agree though the UK government is neglecting it's responsibilities with the nations defence? Allies can change there mind just as quick as the wind changes; and the US is a perfect example in how especially Mrs Clinton refers to The Falkland's by their arrogant Argie name…

The UK should be able to field a full spectrum of defence capabilities which reflect their national and international commitments.

It is disappointing that the UK can no learn from other nations in the GFC (e.g. France, South Korea, Japan) that by investing in military hardware stimulates manufacturing and secures job at an unstable moment in time.


Tim, yes I have looked into Converteam also, it is interesting to note the companies behind both efforts and how they have cooperated. EMCAT would have worked and it would have meant once less area of reliance of Uncle Sam.



The Area defence argument is a good one, years ago the USA realised in the face of new generation ASMs that it could not proficiently engage all the threats;(it banked on leakers!); it was around this time USN CBGs reduced their escort numbers and composition. This is not to say the yanks don't have world leading capabilities here, but it is interesting to note that more than one US Admiral has been impressed with the Sea Viper System (this includes the SAMPSON radar which makes SPY-1 look rather dated).

One argument that I have not seen is how (example Falkland's again) as a pilot when your wingmen are exploding around you, the desire to continue the attack in most cases disappears. In this case the 48 missile silo on a T45 is probably sufficient to deal with any diehards who want to get into the most modern CDS easy kill envelopes. This is not a huge number, dead heroes don't reap many rewards nowadays…

Counter this with LR attacks with stand off weapons? …poses other issues, but missiles really need to be released well inside their operational range (almost terminal) to almost guarantee a hit (refer previous paragraph). Releasing missiles at extreme range historically provides time for the CDS and command team the luxury of prioritising kill intercepts and to organise the structure of the battle group to meet this threat (e.g. soft kill defences like chaff).

During the closing phases of the Cold War; the Russians were looking at single vector attacks with 10's of ASMs on AEGIS equipped ships since the fixed arrays (with arcs of two Mk99 directors on CGs) do have some limitations; T45's do not have this limitation.

Of course; the UK will only have 6 T45's which is insufficient to protect two CVF's, so watch this space post 2020 if the UK has two carriers in services, things would have to change (note the French when they planned for the CdG). I would almost say the stalled T27 (T22bIII) project may get a second wind with an AAW focus…
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

15 November 2012

To Shaun - Ex_RNZN
First, lets think about electromagnetic launch, be it converteam or General Atomics (EMALS). These both are linear induction motors, either with magnets on the shuttle or electromagnets. Either way, I see electromagnetic launch blithely mentioned as the future of catapult launch. Unfortunately several problems arise. It takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate 70,000 pounds to 180+ miles and hour in 3 seconds, or 69.38 million foot pounds of energy delivered in 3 seconds. I think that is a little much for the typical diesel/generator ship propulsion system propulsion to provide and at the same time to maintain sufficient speed to provide enough wind over deck that F35s require to support CATOBAR without damaging the traps. This of course raises the obvious question as to where you get that launch energy. This is one of the items that are not generally mentioned about electromagnetic launch. First, if you want to land an explosive projectile on a target 10-15 miles away, do you use a railgun? Or do you use a shell packed with explosive propellant. I had a PHD tell me that there was the equivalent of several megawatts of electrical power equivalent in two 105 mm howitzer shells and that it was nicely packaged and easily stored until the operating scenario arose to need, by internal combustion within the shell,the launch of the explosive projectile.

So how does electromagnetic launch compare? Lets take a look at EMALS first. Launch energy (electricity) is generated by the ship's generator, or if not sized large enough, a separate large diesel generator will have to be installed in the propulsion machinery spaces and the generated energy stored for launch energy. What levels of energy storage energy are required to launch a 70,000 pound loaded F18 E/F at close to 200 M.. PH at a 3G launch?. Again, 69.38 million foot pounds of energy delivered in 3 seconds. EMALS uses for launch energy storage 3 large motor generators per catapult. In motor mode, the MG sets are spun up so that the electrical energy from the power source is converted to rotating mechanical force or inertia. When the MG sets are switched to generator mode, the inertial rotating energy is converted into mechanical energy and delivered to the catapults during launch. Of course, the MG sets are like a glass of water, once you consume part of it, there is less available to drink later. Thus the MG set rotors, as they convert inertial energy to electrical launch power, slow down proportionally, thus delivering less power and acceleration as the plane is propelled down the catapult track.

Emals also is speed limited as the dwell time at each fixed launch coil decreases as a function of time at that coil reduced by the magnetic reluctance caused by trying to pump all of that power into a launch coil so that full rated power is not available for the full time of exposure of the shuttle to the impulse granted by the coil. By the way, I think that they finally fixed the vibration caused by the shuttle being handed off from one coil to the next with a drop in power during the hand-off.

anyone who wants a comparison between EMALS and ICCALS, let me know at cstallardva@yahoo.com
Clint Stallard

16 November 2012

Shaun- I agree totally.

I wonder what makes all this so difficult for the establishment to understand? Maybe they don't want to. Or is they are being badly advised by the MOD?

Politicians, as we've heard recently, still think they can do the same things they did before the cuts. Well you simply cant. The sooner they realise that the better.

For them to spout on about defence first and how patriotic they are is, at the very minimum, insulting.

I personally think they need to get the economy moving not by building housing, as mortgages are so difficult to obtain, but by increasing expenditure on capital projects and that could include defence. Upgrading Portsmouth dockyard would be a good starting point.

I certainly think 13 type 26 is not going to be enough and there is a need for smaller 2-3,000 tonne corvettes armed with a 76mm gun and short range missiles. I would think probably 6-8 hulls.

Any objection on the part of the Navy to do with buying corvettes, risking the loss of more capable units is now not relevant, as there are so few frigates and destroyers left. For anti drugs, piracy and home waters work they would be ideal. Maybe even using one of the fort class as a floating base for them to work from in the middle east or Caribbean.

Cancelling CEC was short sighted too, with so few escorts it would have been a useful force multiplier and at 48m per hull, cheap.

Without all these things, no matter how good they say the F35 is, if it or its carrier cant be protected, 12 aircraft will quickly be reduced to zero. The ability to surge,to say 36(read 28 max)is utterly unworkable in real life. How are they going to keep the pilots current, let alone get them on the carrier which could be on the other side of the world.

I despair I really do.
Tim Dainton - Romsey

20 November 2012

I replied earlier but it hasn't been logged.

So I will repeat in short, since I hate repetition.

With a Linear motor based EMCAT, the only draw on the ships electrics is a 3 phase input to the linear motor control and power inverter system; which depending on the configuration of spare capacity in the switch board and the inverter staging, may not require additional electric generation plants to be fitted.

Yes, the inverters would require a more advanced DC bank reservoir system than a normal capacitor system would provide; an improved inductive (similar to a MG) setup I heard about would probably have been part of the solution to improve the regeneration time of the system to improve the launch rates.

Linear motors like any servo develop full torque at a standstill; with acceleration rates which would have provided the necessary force required to launch a war laden aircraft. My concern with the design extends to cooling system to ensure the system doesn't have the degradation issues mentioned by Clint. QA would have been critical here,
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

23 November 2012

I would say that the obvious application of the Internal Combustion Catapult would be as a launching system for land based Unmanned Combat Aircraft or UCAVs. Such a system is relatively simple, does not rely on an external power source and can be designed as a modular system allowing it to be transported in a standard civilian semi-trailer or in a specially designed vehicle and assembled at the launch site within a few hours.
The storage of fuel and oxidiser on board a ship might present some problems. The storage of liquid oxygen or compressed air in large quantities would be a significant hazard. Hydrogen peroxide does not have to be kept under high pressure, but is very reactive and difficult to store. Nitrogen tetroxide is easier to store, but highly toxic. Perhaps the best option would be to use diesel fuel with a solid oxidiser like ammonium perchlorate. Not very efficient, but convenient.
While western air forces are understandably unwilling to admit the fact, it is nevetheless clear that fixed air bases are becoming increasingly vulnerable to weapons like the Russian 9K720 Iskander missile, and that in the future, this vulnerability is likely to become more acute as Iskander analogues and highly stealthy Unmanned Combat Aircraft enter service.
It is also clear that the manned combat aircraft that operate from these bases can now be outperformed in most strike missions by cruise missiles and weapons like the 9K720 Iskander, and that they will also be outperformed by Unmanned Combat Aircraft when these enter service.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

11 December 2012

To qualify my earlier comments slightly, liquid oxygen and oxygen-enriched air do not necessarily have to be stored under high pressure, cryogenic storage is also possible. But this would be inconvenient under field conditions. It would be possible in an aircraft carrier, but cryogenic systems are vulnerable to shock and impact damage, because of the brittleness of materials at cryogenic temperatures. In a worst case scenario there would be a danger of the ship turning into a giant blowtorch I think.
Returning to the subject of the CVF, it would be possible in principle to mount an internal combustion catapult externally, to one side of the fight deck, with very little modification to the ship. This could be used to launch UCAVs without obstructing other flight operations, and removed when not required.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

21 December 2012

The Elizabeth and the Wales will, solidly, place the Royal Navy in #2 behind America.
Alan

11 January 2013

Alan,

Maybe joint #2 with China, India & Russia vying for an edge. I find any notion that we would go to war with any of these nations highly improbable, and inconceivable without US support. If we ever find ourselves having to act alone, then it would be against a nation with inferior military capabilities. 6 Type 45 destoyers and 13 Type 26 frigates should be able to provide sufficient cover to keep one CVF operational at any one time. And if we purchase 48 F35B's in the first tranch then it will be possible to surge to 30+ operational strike aircraft in an emergency. I really don't understand alot of the gloom and pessimism that's been prophesised on this forum by others. Lets just keep our fingers crossed that we don't get bogged down in a major conflict for the next 7 years.
Andy - Norwich

26 February 2013

What we should do is to look at ways of obtaining new capabilities using these ships. The US Navy are conducting trials with the X47 UCAV demonstrator, which in a service derivative version would give them capabilities far greater than what is possible with the F35. And this could happen within 7-10 years. The F35 is already old hat, we need to think ahead.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

20 March 2013

why have royal navy ships only minimum defence capabilities? For the cost of such ships, surely appropriate defence systems are mandatory?
p batten