Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier question

[Shasper]

The HAL Tejas LCA naval version comes to mind . . . and who saids BAE couldn't navalise the ol' Hawk 100/200?

[Aircav]

Q

Q would be the letter on FAA aircraft assigned to R08 HMS Queen Elizabeth.
G

Thank you Geoff, thats all I wanted to know 

[Tojo633]

The navalisation of the Hawk would be the most obvious option, cheaper - although the way the MOD goes it would probably not be cheap in the end. Then again the Hawk is already flying with the USN, so could the newer version be converted for carrier ops? it would depend on the rear fuselage structures strengths and ability to position suitable dive brakes/flaps to assist deck landings. According to Wikipedia BAe were involved in producing the wings and rear fuselage aft of the cockpit for the Goshawk, so they have have sufficient info to develop a new carrier hawk for the RN if this were an option.
Now where is my Airfix Hawk models
Cheers
Sandy

[pyro-manic]

Hopefully the Flying Fists of 899 NAS will be appearing on the new aircraft.

If Lizzie is having "Q" as a tail code, will Prince of Wales have "P" or "W"? Or something else?

[PR19_Kit]

You can see the new Govt looking for cheaper alternatives possible off the shelf aircraft from our allies

I agree with the sentiments, but what alternatives are there?

Will Rafales etc. work off a ski-jump and will they cough up to add the arrestor systems they'll need to stop CTOL aircraft? Hopefully not as much as the sky-rocketing costs of Lockheed-Martin's Christmas Bonus Machine though....

[Thorvic]

It was the RAF who pushed the VTOL F-35B for CVF as they felt a CTOL option would threaten their mainstream frontline jets. The RN went along as VTOL would have easier continuity from the current Invincibles. However since then the SHARS were culled as a cost saving, the RAF haven't be overly helpfull in providing an operational Airgroup from Joint Force harrier and have now indicated they are happy to sacrifice the Harriers early to guarantee their tranche 3 Typhoons so VTOL capability is no longer a capability necessity.

The carriers can be fitted arrestor gear and catapults with the ski-jump removed as the CVF requirement called on the design to be able to be changed to a CTOL config at a later date if required and as such internal space is reserved for the equipment. The PA2 version of the Design for the French Navy included standard CTOL gear and we know the MOD are watching the USN EMALS electromagnetic catapult development closely as this would be much more computable to the eclectically driven CVF.

Given both the parties of the new govt have talked up closer cooperation with our allies, the CTOL CVF would allow cross decking with USN & French carrier, i wouldn't put it past them to order a sqdn of Superbugs or Rafales a couple of Hawkeyes and then form joint sqdns with either of the other navies to top up the airgroup. Quite possible the 2nd CVF would act as cover when either the other CVF was in refit or the CdG was refuelling to maintain European carrier capability, i certainly doubt the RN would ever have the manpower and airgroup to fully man and equip both CVFs at the same time, unless one was in LPH mode covering for Ocean.

Given the costs involved i seriously doubt the MOD would fund the conversion of Typhoon or Gripen, but instead go with an off the shelf design, and pacify BAE with UCAV orders to replace F-35B lost work.

G

[anthonyp]

According to Wikipedia BAe (snippage)

BAE, BAE, BAE!!!  IT'S ALL CAPS!!!

There, let the company man out, now he's safely back in his hole.

If they do go CTOL, France might get back into the game with PA2 and buy it off the shelf from the UK (not incurring any development costs that made them flee from the project in terror).

[Green Dragon]

I think I read somewhere that the Gripen is being considered for an Indian Navy requirement for carrier aircraft.
Maybe we should just put the Harrier back into production? Would mean more UK jobs, less money going out of the countryand apparently Taiwan want some VTOL planes in case China takes out their runways so there is potential for an export order. Harriers are a LOT cheaper than JSF's!

Paul Harrison

[Mossie]

According to Wikipedia BAe (snippage)

BAE, BAE, BAE!!!  IT'S ALL CAPS!!!

There, let the company man out, now he's safely back in his hole.

If they do go CTOL, France might get back into the game with PA2 and buy it off the shelf from the UK (not incurring any development costs that made them flee from the project in terror).

Oh, no it wasn't!!! It was still BAe when the majority of the work was being done on the Goshawk.  I remember going on an open day around BAe Brough & seeing the jigs & components for the T-45 wings.  I haven't managed to get to BAE Brough, they haven't done an open day in years.  It was always really good, they put plenty on & always had a load of development stuff & freebie brochures, I just wish I'd kept some of it.

I've piped up before about a T-45D, using a Hawk 100 as a basis.  Not sure a navalised Hawk would be right for the RN, kind of a backwards step.  Typhoons might be good, or even Gripens.

[PR19_Kit]

The carriers can be fitted arrestor gear and catapults with the ski-jump removed as the CVF requirement called on the design to be able to be changed to a CTOL config at a later date if required and as such internal space is reserved for the equipment. The PA2 version of the Design for the French Navy included standard CTOL gear and we know the MOD are watching the USN EMALS electromagnetic catapult development closely as this would be much more computable to the eclectically driven CVF.

I know about the EMALS stuff, the firm I worked for proposed it to the MoD and I spent some time at Bath and Bristol helping out with the proposal.

But what I was thinking of was would a CTOL fighter work using the ski-jump as is, the deck being a lot longer than the Invincibles, but they would need to fit arrestor gear of course.

[pyro-manic]

It works for the Russians, but it's the most inefficient type of carrier operation - you need a long deck for the take-off run, and an extremely good thrust/weight ratio - so either your planes have enormous engines, RATO, or they launch with no fuel/payload. Then you have to factor in deck space and layout - STOBAR means less room for aircraft, both those being prepped for launch and those being recovered. A lightly loaded Tiffie might get off the ski-jump ok, I suppose. Catapults would be the much better option though.

[Thorvic]

The carriers can be fitted arrestor gear and catapults with the ski-jump removed as the CVF requirement called on the design to be able to be changed to a CTOL config at a later date if required and as such internal space is reserved for the equipment. The PA2 version of the Design for the French Navy included standard CTOL gear and we know the MOD are watching the USN EMALS electromagnetic catapult development closely as this would be much more computable to the eclectically driven CVF.

I know about the EMALS stuff, the firm I worked for proposed it to the MoD and I spent some time at Bath and Bristol helping out with the proposal.

But what I was thinking of was would a CTOL fighter work using the ski-jump as is, the deck being a lot longer than the Invincibles, but they would need to fit arrestor gear of course.

Possibly with teh original 300m long CVF design before they chopped out 20m fwd of the first island, thats resulted in the Ski jump going to half deck width to allow other side for deck parking, together with deletion of the 2nd STOL runway and JBD which were off set from the main runway.

BTW there is another cheaper new carrier aircraft available, the Mig-29K2 - The Indian Navy have already paid the development and testing cost for their ex-Gorshkov carrier and that uses a ramp  . Plus we could sell the Russians the CVF design in exchange as they are after new carriers as well as the Mistral LPA's  - Our allies apart from France might have kittens however but it would certainly improve Anglo-Russian relations

[Mossie]

They don't call you evil for nothing Geoff!   I like it!!!

Wonder how much a navalised T-50 would cost, if they could fit on CVF???  The thrust vectoring will help it get off a carrier....

[Green Dragon]

Any idea what they chopped out the 20m section for? I always thought bigger was better for a carrier so you can fit more stuff in/on it!

Paul Harrison

[pyro-manic]

Yeah, but if you can't drydock the damn thing it's not much use! British warships have long been limited on maximum size due to the dimensions of navy docks (Portsmouth, Rosyth and Devonport). That's why the French PA2 design was bigger than CVF - the French have access to larger drydocks than the RN, so their ships can be bigger. It was decided that enlarging existing docks or building new ones was too expensive, so CVF is as big as it can be without doing so.