the "Dump the JSF" (or "alternate NATO fighter aircraft after 2015") GB

[darthspud]

tbh Lancer, cat type is irrelevant.
We need whatever aircraft carrier we purchase to be able to launch conventional aircraft rather than an unproven, massively expensive, single engine(ok, they've tinkered) vtol aircraft.
Why pay for the development costs of this white elephant, when we can buy combat proven aircraft suitable for our now and early future needs.

We really shouldn't be trying to think 'what might come along' and think 'what do we actually do now, and will we be doing the same in 10 years?'

Realistically, it won't be much different and by then we may, possibly by then , be financially able to buy expensive toys again.

[PR19_Kit]

Two points.

1) The QE and PoW couldn't use steam cats as they don't have steam to power them. They DO have lots of electrical power thus the use of the EM Cat.

2) One reason why they want to buy the F-35 is that some of it is made in the UK and that keeps the small UK aerospace industry running. That includes some of the airframe and every single lift fan in every F-35B, which are made in a Rolls-Royce factory nr Nottingham, assembled in a VAST machine installed by me....

No parts of any F-18 are made here so buying them would dig big holes in our balance of payments.

[McColm]

There is an article on YouTube about the Australians buying the F-35, reminds me of the F-111. When the A version was bought they had to wait four years before most of the bugs were ironed out ,so why buy an aircraft before it has been tested?
I mean you don't buy a car before you take it for a test drive .
Then the F-35 can't out perform the F-16 at moment, due to the software .

[wuzak]

Two points.

1) The QE and PoW couldn't use steam cats as they don't have steam to power them. They DO have lots of electrical power thus the use of the EM Cat.

2) One reason why they want to buy the F-35 is that some of it is made in the UK and that keeps the small UK aerospace industry running. That includes some of the airframe and every single lift fan in every F-35B, which are made in a Rolls-Royce factory nr Nottingham, assembled in a VAST machine installed by me....

No parts of any F-18 are made here so buying them would dig big holes in our balance of payments.

The Russians, Chinese and Indians do without catapults to launch their fighter jets. Relying, instead, on good aerodynamics, good thrust and a ski jump.

But they also have angled decks with arrestor gear.

It is the landing of the aircraft that would make it difficult to adopt the F-18, Rafale or navalised Typhoon. The F-35B's vertical landing negates the need for arrestor gear and angled decks.

[scooter]

Two points.

1) The QE and PoW couldn't use steam cats as they don't have steam to power them. They DO have lots of electrical power thus the use of the EM Cat.

2) One reason why they want to buy the F-35 is that some of it is made in the UK and that keeps the small UK aerospace industry running. That includes some of the airframe and every single lift fan in every F-35B, which are made in a Rolls-Royce factory nr Nottingham, assembled in a VAST machine installed by me....

No parts of any F-18 are made here so buying them would dig big holes in our balance of payments.

The Russians, Chinese and Indians do without catapults to launch their fighter jets. Relying, instead, on good aerodynamics, good thrust and a ski jump.

But they also have angled decks with arrestor gear.

It is the landing of the aircraft that would make it difficult to adopt the F-18, Rafale or navalised Typhoon. The F-35B's vertical landing negates the need for arrestor gear and angled decks.

The problem with STOBAR is it limits aircraft payloads, types launched, and fuel carried.  I can't see a C-2 or E-2 trying to launch off a ski jump

[wuzak]

The problem with STOBAR is it limits aircraft payloads, types launched, and fuel carried.  I can't see a C-2 or E-2 trying to launch off a ski jump

That is true.

But not many navies operate C-2s or E-2s, or their equivalent, from carriers.

The RN, for instance, has not had that capability for some time, and will not have it with the Elizabeth II class carriers.

[PR19_Kit]

The RN, for instance, has not had that capability for some time, and will not have it with the Elizabeth II class carriers.

How do you know? It may be that such a capability becomes needed durng the life of the QEII class and we may see something in that line needing to operate from the carriers.

The last FAA COD aircraft were the Gannets which flew onto the old Ark Royal, which was large enough to operate such types, but the Invincibles were neither large enough, nor COULD operate such types because of the ski-jump bow.

[deathjester]

I thought they were getting the radars off the old Sea Kings, attached to the rear ramp of Merlins?

[wuzak]

The RN, for instance, has not had that capability for some time, and will not have it with the Elizabeth II class carriers.

How do you know? It may be that such a capability becomes needed durng the life of the QEII class and we may see something in that line needing to operate from the carriers.

No catapult. No arrestor gear. No angled deck.

These things will have to be changed in order to be able to launch and recover larger fixed wing aircraft.

[PR19_Kit]

No catapult. No arrestor gear. No angled deck.

These things will have to be changed in order to be able to launch and recover larger fixed wing aircraft.

They are built with provision for the catapult etc. so they could be converted at a later date if need be.

[wuzak]

No catapult. No arrestor gear. No angled deck.

These things will have to be changed in order to be able to launch and recover larger fixed wing aircraft.

They are built with provision for the catapult etc. so they could be converted at a later date if need be.

Ok. But for now they won't have that capability.

[rickshaw]

Part of the problem with the argument that instead of F-35s, F/A-18E/G or Rafale or Typhoon of Gripen should have been bought "off the shelf" is that while these aircraft are adequate, they are essentially 20 or 30 year old technology.  The F-35 is only 10 year old technology.  So, which system is going to have the expected 20-30 service life and still remain viable against potential enemies?   However, we've been down this road many times before and those who are anti-F-35 will remain anti-F-35, no matter what is is I believe.   What has to be recognised is that this is essentially the only game in town and too much capital, political and monetary has been sunk into it and it has become, in the words of the bankers, "too big to be allowed to fail".  It isn't going to be abandoned today or even tomorrow, so people really need to get used to it IMHO.

As for using E-2s off of a ski-jump, my understanding it all depends on how much speed you have as you leave the ski-jump as to whether you'll keep flying or not.   I'd argue that with a long enough run up, the propeller powered aircraft could use the ski-jump, particularly if only lightly loaded.  Take off light, refuel in the air, carry out your patrol (of course, this leaves the problem of how you get a heavily loaded in-flight refueller off of a ski-jump but thats the only hole in the argument ).   I suppose we could see a return to using RATOG to help if the long enough run up isn't available?

[kitnut617]

Of course, you could have a short catapult system just before the ski ramp ----

[Thorvic]

No catapult. No arrestor gear. No angled deck.

These things will have to be changed in order to be able to launch and recover larger fixed wing aircraft.

They are built with provision for the catapult etc. so they could be converted at a later date if need be.

Not quite, they have the sponsons for the provision of an angled deck, which works out as a very nice axial STOVL deck area on the QEC. There is machinery space inside for the additional power generation requirements be it electrical or a donkey Steam plant but that's about it spaces for the Catapults, their troughs and the Arrestor gear have not been built into the design so a CATOBAR conversion would require the flight deck and those spaces below it to be cut open and reassigned to accommodate the CATOBAR hardware.

That's part of the reason for the reversal of the 2010 SDSR switch to CATOBAR, whilst the MOD had kept its options open on the F-35 variant (they were not going to do final down selection till 2012 just in case the F-35B failed to meet STOVL minimum requirements) the problem was the MOD had instructed the ship builder to design and build on the assumption that the F-35B STOVL would be the selected choice. Thus we had a situation where the aircraft variant option was still open but due to delays and costs the QEC wasn't designed and built with the CATOBAR hardware space reserved resulting in somewhat higher conversion costs than anticipated.

[PR19_Kit]

When my ex-employers were quoting for the EMALS system the QEIIs did have space and strongpoints built under the deck for later installation of the system. That was in 2003 IIRC and the F-35B was still the 'assumed aircraft' in their thinking at the time. In our discussions they always seemed to want all the options open, thus the requirement to allocate space for the EMALS but without planning for conventional aircraft just then.