F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

On an air group note, if there is anything in this consideration for a marinised Typhoon, what are the alternatives to JSF-B? There was an article in the Financial Times about it today.

Typhoon?
Super Hornet?
Gripen?
Rafale?

BAE are saying that the weight penalty for Typhoon would only be 460kg in a naval version. They could also be smelling the whiff of more sales. The rumour that the canards would obscure vision has been totally dismissed in evaluations, but the nose will! Could mean fitting of a periscope that feeds an image to the HUD.

The Gripen is stressed for no flare landings and in SIM flying has done carrier landings without arresting wires.

Super Hornet looks a good option. Rafale with zero Dassault work share and zero tech` transfer is a non-starter even though Rafale looks an excellent aircraft, only it`s radar lets it down.

This is hypothetical of course but the MOD are having a fit that the carriers may be ready before JSF B is ready for export or could be canceled...
Hedging bets is something the MOD don`t usually do, they normally LOVE having egg on their faces Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

On an air group note, if there is anything in this consideration for a marinised Typhoon, what are the alternatives to JSF-B? There was an article in the Financial Times about it today.

Typhoon?
Super Hornet?
Gripen?
Rafale?

BAE are saying that the weight penalty for Typhoon would only be 460kg in a naval version. They could also be smelling the whiff of more sales. The rumour that the canards would obscure vision has been totally dismissed in evaluations, but the nose will! Could mean fitting of a periscope that feeds an image to the HUD.

The Gripen is stressed for no flare landings and in SIM flying has done carrier landings without arresting wires.

Super Hornet looks a good option. Rafale with zero Dassault work share and zero tech` transfer is a non-starter even though Rafale looks an excellent aircraft, only it`s radar lets it down.

This is hypothetical of course but the MOD are having a fit that the carriers may be ready before JSF B is ready for export or could be canceled...
Hedging bets is something the MOD don`t usually do, they normally LOVE having egg on their faces Laughing

Well, the F-35B is a completely different class of aircraft compared to all of the above. I am not talking about capabilities or effectiveness; the F-35B is a STOVL. None of the others are. The reason they chose to go the STOVL route are many and their wisdom are debatable. But given that the carrier is to be STOVL, only the F-35B will work. If not, the F-35C is the aircraft to compare against. And none of these are likely to be more capable than the F-35C whether the measure is A2A, A2G, A2Sh, ELINT, range or ordnance load/selection. In most areas they will be behind by a long shot.

Seems like we are getting a bit off topic here. I think we should keep in mind the reason why the Falklands was brought and why we use much of the USN as an example. It seems that the wrong lessons where learned from the Falklands (too few carriers, inadequate AEW). The USN examples are used because over the past 60 years the US Navy has by far the most experience (both in peacetime and war)in Naval Aviation. Collectively they are the experts. Lets not get into side discussions and have the thread shut down but use the examples as discussion points of the merits (or lack thereof) of the CVF design.

Sorry Snypa you keep mentioning a design that can support more than 40 AC but I have yet to find one credible source that says that is going to be the case. Beedall keeps to 40 and they usually get this sort of thing right.

No one has been able to prove that a gas turbine based propulsion system is optimal for this application. In fact most of the documented evidence suggests that this is not the case. It simply is not due to the needs of fuel, and trunking. Further placing your prime movers in such a vulnerable position above the waterline between your bridge and flight ops is an invitation for disaster. They are proposing to do exactly that in order to keep the trunking to a minimum.

A navalized Typhoon is insane on many levels. Maybe she gets off the deck sometimes (remember those engines can push the boat only so fast) with a usable payload on the ski jump. Well where do they land? There are no arresting gear and the deck layout as currently designed sucks for that sort of thing. This is all assuming the Tiffy can even be effectively modified (yeah I heard what the BAE engineers said) economically for use at sea. Anyone wanting to see what it takes to convert a land based Ac for carrier use need only look at the T-45. Simply put, not happening. Anyway I would be willing to bet JSF-B is ready well before these carriers grace the oceans.

DL is right, as envisioned there really is no alternative to JSF-B. If these carriers should be fitted with catapults and arresting gear then it would be JSF-C, followed by Super, or for European unity and to please the continental masters, Rafale.

Carrier capable AC sometime make good land based planes as well (f-4, A-7, A-4) but land based planes never make good carrier capable variants.

Quote:

Hedging bets is something the MOD don`t usually do, they normally LOVE having egg on their faces

Sorry Snypa but I think this is BAE hubris. They would make a lot of money just being funded to try to develop a navalized Typhoon.

The design of these carriers leaves much to be desired. Already it can be seen that the choice of gas turbine propulsion and the resultant inability to use a catapult has limited the RNs options as to aircraft choice.

BTW, this is a pretty interesting read on how the RN is already preparing for the CVFs.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2925751&C=navwar

Last edited by SpeakTheTruth on Jul 31, 2007 - 12:48 PM; edited 2 times in total

Thumper3181 wrote:

Sorry Snypa you keep mentioning a design that can support more than 40 AC but I have yet to find one credible source that says that is going to be the case. Beedall keeps to 40 and they usually get this sort of thing right.

Beedall is good but its not the official source. Like Synpa I've seen a few higher numbers floating around on the net. I guess we'll just have to wait for a confirmed number.

Also (I mentioned this before) the quoted aircraft numbers are for the F-35B, which as far as I'm aware hasn't had any space saving measures you would normally see on a navalised aircraft e.g. fold up wings. Perhaps if they had quoted the maximum complement using the F-18 the numbers would have been higher.

Thumper3181 wrote:

No one has been able to prove that a gas turbine based propulsion system is optimal for this application. In fact most of the documented evidence suggests that this is not the case.

No one has really been trying to, they have just been pointing out that a nuclear power plant is more expensive (both capital and maintenance costs) and takes up a lot more space. Yes nuclear would be nice but it would mean higher costs, more delays and more complications. Those cutbacks to the RN you incorrectly stated earlier (quoted below) would have probably had some truth if nuclear plants were powering the new CVF's.

Thumper3181 wrote:

These carriers if built as designed are in fact a step backward for the RN. Retiring literally dozens of ships to pay for these two subpar carriers results in a downgrade in the RNs overall capability.

Nuclear would have been more important during the cold war and although today still has its advantages, the cost outweighs the benefits for the RN.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Further placing your prime movers in such a vulnerable position above the waterline between your bridge and flight ops is an invitation for disaster.

Torpedo attack? If a nuclear plant does get damaged and its a risk to the crew - game over. Isn't one of the reasons the propulsion system and plant in a CVN is below the waterline so that the weight is lower down adding stability? Although it would be unlikely that an enemy would be in the position to fire in the first place (with escorts and patrols) and it would have to hit in the right place. But still you can't rule it out.

Thumper3181 wrote:

DL is right, as envisioned there really is no alternative to JSF-B. If these carriers should be fitted with catapults and arresting gear then it would be JSF-C, followed by Super, or for European unity and to please the continental masters, Rafale.

I agree and the F-35C is what I would want to see if the RN does fit cats and cables on the deck.

Thumper3181 wrote:

The design of these carriers leaves much to be desired. Already it can be seen that the choice of gas turbine propulsion and the resultant inability to use a catapult has limited the RNs options as to aircraft choice.

- GT is more practical for the RN
- This design worked for the French because it was designed to have cats & cables (which they are fitting). So if the RN needs cats and Cables they can be fitted.

Thumper3181 wrote:

It seems that the wrong lessons where learned from the Falklands (too few carriers, inadequate AEW).

Its a shame that it took the Falklands war to make the British government realise the importance of a well funded navy. But still the Falklands was the last major naval operation and a lot was learnt from it all over the world.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Thumper, STT, I don`t think we are straying too much from the topic, the FI is relevant to the RN and carriers so I can`t see us being shut down but I get the picture Laughing

Yep, the USN ARE the premiere experts on CVN design but we are not talking about a CVN.
We are building a 65,000T carrier not a monster of 100,000 Tons. A nuclear powerplant would be nice but it is not viable economically for a UK CVF. Even a projected speed of 27 knots is more than adequate for current op`s. No one is racing across the oceans in worldwide conflicts anymore trying to keep up with other task groups so I don`t think a couple of knots difference in CVN versus CVF speed is even worth mentioning.
If three knots is going to cost another 150 Million GBPs` (don`t quote me on the figure).it is not worthwhile.

We have to get away from comparing the CVF with a CVN, they are two different animals, we are not trying to do a supercarrier.

We can do the job with a gas turbine layout, I am very confident about that. If you look at Beedall site, which we all enjoy quoting, no -one there is saying it was a gross error omitting the nuclear power option, if that was stated, please point it out to me. I just don`t see anybody having a huge gripe with a gas turbine powerplant outside of this thread, will all due respect Thump`. Wink

If you could point me to a study that will change my mind convincingly I would be interested.

BAE I don`t believe are being hubristic at all on a Typhoon M. Dishonest maybe, but not arrogant Laughing

They know all about Goshawk conversion and what a challenge it was.

TVC is planned for Typhoon so I think that would put a different complexion on a Typhoon M. They foresee thicker wing roots, a nose or fuselage hook mount, podded landing gear and a periscope.
The MOD didn`t buy the idea in 2001 along with the head of the commission that looked at the idea, however he was at odds with the team that did the study who all said it could work. It would be the ultimate irony if we built a Typhoon M, this is the prime reason France pulled out of Eurofighter in the first place.

With thrust vectoring aircraft you don`t need a catapult, the Russians and Indians already do it with SU-27 KUB.(bit sketchy on the details). The Gripen doesn`t need a cat` either.
In fact, a ski-ramp is excellent for a lot of aircraft. I would like F-35 C but I don`t think it could do the launch without cat` trick.

A counter argument is that these kind of cat-less launches might hurt the gross weight and hence payload capacity of any of these aircraft, so there is much to think about for planners.
I know the RN desperately wanted F-35 C and CTOL CVF whilst the RAF really wanted F-35B, probably to avoid jointery!

On the air group size, the fact remains that CVF CAN do the 48 aircraft "thing". It is 7 years from running into the Clyde off the slip way so nothing is certain until then, as STT pointed out.

Regards, Snypa.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Quote:

On the air group size, the fact remains that CVF CAN do the 48 aircraft "thing". It is 7 years from running into the Clyde off the slip way so nothing is certain until then, as STT pointed out.

I think we have to simply acknowledge the fact that:-

(1) The typically embarked air wing is usually not the maximum operable air wing of a carrier.

(2) The Nimitz typically operate 4 squadrons of fighters/attackers (~48 jets) along with helos, E-2s, and S-3s. The number of aircrafts is typically around 70-ish. This is about 20 -- one fighter squadron and a few helos -- shy of the maximum capacity of about 90 aircrafts (all types), but it is typical.

(3) I presume that the same is true of the CVF. 40 aircrafts might be typical even if the capacity may be closer to 60. 40 aircrafts is ~2 fighter squadrons (~24), a dozen or so helos, AEW and auxiliaries. It is plenty actually for most of the missions that the ships will be tasked to carry out. The carrier may very conceivably be able to take a third squadron of fighters, but space working and parking space will be cramped and it'll probably not be done in peacetime or wartime unless there is a very specific reason to do so.

[/quote]

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

snypa777 wrote:

They foresee thicker wing roots, a nose or fuselage hook mount, podded landing gear and a periscope.

A nose hook mount? Did I read this right? Confused

snypa777 wrote:

With thrust vectoring aircraft you don`t need a catapult,

You don't need thrust vectoring with a ski jump, as long as the airplane handles well enough at low speed (which it probably does if it can land on a carrier). But without a catapult or ski jump, unless you're flying a Harrier or F-35B, forget it. Well, an F-22 might just be able to launch successfully if it started at the very stern of the ship...any volunteers? Twisted Evil

snypa777 wrote:

the Russians and Indians already do it with SU-27 KUB.(bit sketchy on the details).

Neither the Su-27K nor the Su-27KUB currently have thrust vectoring, although they do have canards to improve their low-speed handling. Thrust vectoring is being considered, but mainly for slower approach speeds and supposedly safer emergency takeoffs after missing the arrestor cables (not really necessary, so they probably won't get TVC). The main drawback to the system that the Russians are currently using is the short run up to the ski jump, which severely limits payload. However, the CVF, as planned, will have a much longer run that should improve on this limitation significantly, although how much is hard to say.

snypa777 wrote:

The Gripen doesn`t need a cat` either.

I imagine that many fighters could launch from a CVF without a catapult as long as they have a ski jump. I'd be very surprised if the Hornet could not do it, for example.

snypa777 wrote:

In fact, a ski-ramp is excellent for a lot of aircraft. I would like F-35 C but I don`t think it could do the launch without cat` trick.

Why couldn't it? The Su-27K can, and it's not exactly oozing with specific excess thrust, either.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

DL`, thank you for enlightening me, I didn`t realise that USN CVN`s patrolled with smaller airgroups/wings than their maximum. In hindsight it makes sense, economically, safety, resource management -wise.

The RN traditionally doesn`t deck park because of the environment they usually operate in, the cold North Atlantic, but that would have to change if there was an enlarged air group embarked. Folding wings are a "must have".

Dwight`, are there any provisions for folding wings on F-35 B? It would seem a complex job, especially with the roll posts and associated ducting on the type?

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

They foresee thicker wing roots, a nose or fuselage hook mount, podded landing gear and a periscope.

RobertCook wrote:

A nose hook mount? Did I read this right? Confused

I missed out the word "gear".

snypa777 wrote:

With thrust vectoring aircraft you don`t need a catapult,

RobertCook wrote:

You don't need thrust vectoring with a ski jump, as long as the airplane handles well enough at low speed (which it probably does if it can land on a carrier). But without a catapult or ski jump, unless you're flying a Harrier or F-35B, forget it. Well, an F-22 might just be able to launch successfully if it started at the very stern of the ship...any volunteers? Twisted Evil

Nope, it is reckoned a Gripen can pull that trick without ramp or cat`.

snypa777 wrote:

the Russians and Indians already do it with SU-27 KUB.(bit sketchy on the details).

RobertCook wrote:

Neither the Su-27K nor the Su-27KUB currently have thrust vectoring, although they do have canards to improve their low-speed handling. Thrust vectoring is being considered, but mainly for slower approach speeds and supposedly safer emergency takeoffs after missing the arrestor cables (not really necessary, so they probably won't get TVC). The main drawback to the system that the Russians are currently using is the short run up to the ski jump, which severely limits payload. However, the CVF, as planned, will have a much longer run that should improve on this limitation significantly, although how much is hard to say.

Told you I was sketchy on that! I did think there would be a payload penalty.

snypa777 wrote:

The Gripen doesn`t need a cat` either.

RobertCook wrote:

I imagine that many fighters could launch from a CVF without a catapult as long as they have a ski jump. I'd be very surprised if the Hornet could not do it, for example.

As said, nope, Gripen doesn`t need either.

snypa777 wrote:

In fact, a ski-ramp is excellent for a lot of aircraft. I would like F-35 C but I don`t think it could do the launch without cat` trick.

RobertCook wrote:

Why couldn't it? The Su-27K can, and it's not exactly oozing with specific excess thrust, either.

I was referring to launches without cat` OR ramp, F-35C may be able to do it but I am doubtful. The Gripen was specifically designed for Swedish use, the Swedes disperse their aircraft and use short strips of road for take off and landings in wartime. The F-35 C isn`t designed with that capability in mind.

Sorry for errors on my original post you replied to, it was early and I was beat Cool

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

snypa777 wrote:

RobertCook wrote:

But without a catapult or ski jump, unless you're flying a Harrier or F-35B, forget it. Well, an F-22 might just be able to launch successfully if it started at the very stern of the ship...any volunteers? Twisted Evil

Nope, it is reckoned a Gripen can pull that trick without ramp or cat`.

Do you know what the Gripen's actual takeoff roll is (preferably loaded for combat)? I know that it's significantly shorter than its runway requirement, but less than 600 m doesn't say a whole lot about taking off from a carrier. A loaded F-22 (with thrust vectoring, of course) could probably take off in 250 m in full burner if it had to (certainly if the carrier is turned into the wind and going full speed), but I can't seem to find a figure for the Gripen.

snypa777 wrote:

I was referring to launches without cat` OR ramp, F-35C may be able to do it but I am doubtful.

OK, in that case, I doubt that most fighters could do this, maybe even with thrust vectoring (it would be close for the best of them). If the Gripen could, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised, but I don't have a good reference for its takeoff roll.

snypa777 wrote:

The Gripen was specifically designed for Swedish use, the Swedes disperse their aircraft and use short strips of road for take off and landings in wartime. The F-35 C isn`t designed with that capability in mind.

Right, but the main issue in Swedish operations is stopping distance, as most modern fighters should be able to take off well within the 800 m length of those strips unless they are very heavily loaded. On a CVF, you've only got about 280 m at the absolute most.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Quote:

DL`, thank you for enlightening me, I didn`t realise that USN CVN`s patrolled with smaller airgroups/wings than their maximum. In hindsight it makes sense, economically, safety, resource management -wise.

Well, they do. This is the current embarked air wing on the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) the last of the Nimitz class. The USS George Bush (CVN-77) is not exactly a Nimitz but a transitionary design between the Nimitz and the CVN(X).

VFA-115 Eagles — F/A-18E Super Hornet
VFA-22 Redcocks - F/A-18E Super Hornet
VFA-113 Stingers — F/A-18C Hornet
VFA-25 Fist of the Fleet — F/A-18C Hornet
VAQ-139 Cougars — EA-6B Prowler
VAW-113 Black Eagles — E-2C Hawkeye 2000
HS-4 Black Knights — SH-60F / HH-60H Seahawk
VRC-30 (Det 1) Providers — C-2A Greyhound

Each of the Hornet squadrons are 12 fighters. There are typically 4 Hawkeyes to allow of the maintenance of AWACs coverage 24/7 even if one or two aircrafts have to be down for repairs. The rest have more variance in strength, but it generally adds up to about 70-ish.

Quote:

Yep, the USN ARE the premiere experts on CVN design but we are not talking about a CVN.

They have also built around a dozen ships similar to the CVF in the last 25 years in the form of the Tarawas and Wasps.

Quote:

Even a projected speed of 27 knots is more than adequate for current op`s.

I am willing to agree to disagree on the 40 - 48 AC issue but 27 knots is wishful thinking. Even if it does do 27, joint ops with CVNs are out.

Quote:

We can do the job with a gas turbine layout, I am very confident
about that.

Take a look at the Makin Island, compare the specs. Look at the split Island on the CVF. Everything points to a botched design in terms of trunking and maximizing usable internal volume.

The USN pioneered electric driver back in the 20s with their battleships of the day. The USN has built and operated more than 100 large gas turbine warships. Why is it only now are they adopting gas turbine propulsion for their next gator carrier? I will give you a hint, it's not because gas turbines are better than steam for this application. Sorry, I will come right out on this one, due to extensive experience the USN probably knows a thing or two about the subject that the RN does not know.

Quote:

BAE I don`t believe are being hubristic at all on a Typhoon M. Dishonest maybe, but not arrogant

I know, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. Who am I to say that BAE is dishonest sometime.

Quote:

A counter argument is that these kind of cat-less launches might hurt the gross weight and hence payload capacity of any of these aircraft,

Big time. Add to that the increased full burn. The inability to launch in some conditions (remember those missing 3 - 5 knots) and the fact that the sea rolls up and down. Not much fun being barely airborne at 100 knots and needing another 50 feet of altitude real quick.

Sure the Russians and Indians do it. Not too often though. There is a difference in being able to do something and doing it safely and effectively time after time.

Quote:

I know the RN desperately wanted F-35 C and CTOL CVF whilst the RAF really wanted F-35B,

Internal politics again, plus lets face it there is a greater workshare for the UK with B than C.

Quote:

probably to avoid jointery

Fancy English term for ***** at sea????

Quote:

On the air group size, the fact remains that CVF CAN do the 48 aircraft

Take a look at the drawing with the AC on deck. Note the hanger is planned to be about 300 X 100. Do the math. They will be towing those extra 8 AC behind them in floats. Add to that the fact that the wings do not fold on the B. But that said lets just agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

It is 7 years from running into the Clyde off the slip way so nothing is certain

Only death and taxes are certain, but if they are planning to start cutting metal on these things anytime soon the design has pretty much been finalized by now. Don't kid yourself, ship construction is not like AC development.

DL in terms of current and planned CVN air wings the total is closer to 60 embarked. Most squadrons these days are 10 - 12 AC. Currently you would have about 42 F-18s of all types, 4-6 EA6Bs, 4-5 Hawkeyes, and 6 Seahawks.

Future airwing looks a bit bigger. Two 10 plane F-35C, Two 12-14 plane F-18, 4 - 6 Growlers, 4 -5 Hawkeyes.

CVNs as well as the CVs regularly carried over 90 AC only 20 years ago. Typical airwing of 1981:
24 F-14 or F-4, 24 A7s, 10-12, A6E, 4-5 KA6Ds, 4-6 Hawkeyes, 4- 6 EA-6Bs, 10 S3A, 6 Sea kings.

It sure would be nice to fill those decks up again but I guess the threat just ins't there anymore. Actually running with 60 - 70 AC make AC handling easier and safer.

Quote:

Each of the Hornet squadrons are 12 fighters.

Some are less. Not sure about these though.

Quote:

VRC-30 (Det 1) Providers — C-2A Greyhound

This is new, since when do we embark cargo AC?

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

I wrote:

Yep, the USN ARE the premiere experts on CVN design but we are not talking about a CVN.

Thumper wrote:

They have also built around a dozen ships similar to the CVF in the last 25 years in the form of the Tarawas and Wasps.

I wasn`t actually doubting USN capability in building ANY ship type, juct pointing out that the UK isn`t building a super carrier so the comparisons are limited in my view. Convenient but true.

I wrote:

We can do the job with a gas turbine layout, I am very confident
about that.

Thumper wrote:

Take a look at the Makin Island, compare the specs. Look at the split Island on the CVF. Everything points to a botched design in terms of trunking and maximizing usable internal volume.

The USN pioneered electric driver back in the 20s with their battleships of the day. The USN has built and operated more than 100 large gas turbine warships. Why is it only now are they adopting gas turbine propulsion for their next gator carrier? I will give you a hint, it's not because gas turbines are better than steam for this application. Sorry, I will come right out on this one, due to extensive experience the USN probably knows a thing or two about the subject that the RN does not know.

......And the RN "invented" turbine power for ships in the nineteenth century, touche!

1. The trunking issue will not be an issue when the Gas turbines are mounted high up.

2. To say the RN is inferior to the USN in terms of gas turbines, their application and the know-how is outrageous Thumper! Are you also saying that overall, the UK is less able than the US in this area?
I would humbly suggest you look at where the majority of your gas turbines come from and USN conventional drive packages, does BAE/RR give you a hint? Do a little research, I think you would be surprised! The contracts are huge and cover a large chunk of your Navy.

I wrote:

A counter argument is that these kind of cat-less launches might hurt the gross weight and hence payload capacity of any of these aircraft,

Thumper wrote:

Big time. Add to that the increased full burn. The inability to launch in some conditions (remember those missing 3 - 5 knots) and the fact that the sea rolls up and down. Not much fun being barely airborne at 100 knots and needing another 50 feet of altitude real quick.

Sure the Russians and Indians do it. Not too often though. There is a difference in being able to do something and doing it safely and effectively time after time.

I can buy that.

I wrote:

probably to avoid jointery

Thumper wrote:

Fancy English term for ***** at sea????

Actually a covert English term for "No More Money!"

I wrote:

On the air group size, the fact remains that CVF CAN do the 48 aircraft

Thumper wrote:

Take a look at the drawing with the AC on deck. Note the hanger is planned to be about 300 X 100. Do the math. They will be towing those extra 8 AC behind them in floats. Add to that the fact that the wings do not fold on the B. But that said lets just agree to disagree on this one.

Fold the wings then do the math. Actually I don`t know, will the F-35 B wings fold or not? Ok, ok, I am willing to call a truce on air groups.!

I wrote:

It is 7 years from running into the Clyde off the slip way so nothing is certain

Thumper wrote:

Only death and taxes are certain, but if they are planning to start cutting metal on these things anytime soon the design has pretty much been finalized by now. Don't kid yourself, ship construction is not like AC development.

The big deals are long lead items. That is the difference I guess.

I talked air group composition, which has much greater flexibility. If you design in the capacity to retro-fit Cat`s and traps, extra turbines and machine space, that can save trouble in the future to a degree with changing air group requirements AND the role of the ship. As an example, the ships will be around long after F-35 takes up its position at AMARC. What if there is only a CTOL F-XX to fly from a ship.

DL wrote:

VRC-30 (Det 1) Providers — C-2A Greyhound

Thumper wrote:

This is new, since when do we embark cargo AC?

Surely not new? I recall C-2A`s embarked long ago. Or were they just visiting?

Edit: Sorry Robert, I have zero specs` on Gripen.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Just all depends what the fight is.

Take a look at Allied Force 1999. At that time the only aircraft capable of doing all weather PGMs on fixed targets was the B-2. Other aircraft had to do LGBs and in the usually crap weather, that meant... show up over target look around, dodge some SAMs and go back home with LGBs still on the racks. Of course not to mention all the fuel you wasted on SEAD/DEAD, ECM, ELINT, BDA support and tanking. Fast forward to the future. In a similar situation, even F-35 STOVL with internal (small) dual use Paveway IV's flying from a CVF, could hit more aimpoints per day than that 1999 mess in crap weather and be pretty effective. Note a lot of 2000lb bomb strikes in Allied Force were gross over-kill including fraggers dropping bridges over the Danube that did not need to be dropped. Assuming F-35 STOVL could handle second and third string IADS like that, you would end up with the same effect ( bad guy says enough) using a lot less aircraft.Including in that exact scenario, F-35 STOVL could do those strikes with no tanking, although large airframe tanking would probably be available anyway. So I don't think the CVF is going to be overly weak by any means. Finally, along with the French carrier road map, any future Allied Force like thing means the whole coalition brings some good fire power along.

Quote:

juct pointing out that the UK isn`t building a super carrier so the comparisons are limited in my view. Convenient but true.

And I have been telling you to look at the LHAs and LHDs as comparison. If the CVFs are going to be STOVL carriers then they should have been along the lines of the new LHA(X).

There is no reason other than design incompetence and penny pinching why a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier cannot make 28-30 knots and carry 50 - 60 conventional aircraft. It has been done before and I see no reason why it cannot be done again. While the CVFs may wind up being useful ships the UK will not be getting the most bang for the buck (or pound) as proposed.

Quote:

And the RN "invented" turbine power for ships in the nineteenth century, touche!

Yes, steam turbines which for this application would provide superior performance while requiring less interior volume.

Quote:

The trunking issue will not be an issue when the Gas turbines are mounted high up.

Nothing like putting a couple of hot jet engines high up in the ship straddling the elevators and underneath you bridge. I am not talking about a huge cruise missile. Penguin would do to put these ships out of action. It's kind of like skimping on deck armor on battlecruisers in WWII.

Quote:

To say the RN is inferior to the USN in terms of gas turbines, their application and the know-how is outrageous Thumper!

Sorry, but it's true.Since 1976 the US has had over 30 Spraunce class destroyers, 30 Ticondaroga class cruisers, 50 OHP frigates, and 50 Arleigh Burkes destroyers built for and operated by the USN.

Quote:

I would humbly suggest you look at where the majority of your gas turbines come from and USN conventional drive packages,

Look again Snypa, all of the above ships use various models of the GE LM2500. All of those ships where pure Gas Turbine powered. Some of the ships backup generators and diesels may be BAE/RR but not the prime movers. I did the research.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

Over 160 large modern warships built within the last 30 years. I wish you had not taken what I said as an insult, it was not meant to be. The USN and GE by sheer numbers are the most expert in this field.

Quote:

Fold the wings then do the math.

They do not fold on the B. It shares the same wing as the A. Only C folds.

Quote:

Surely not new? I recall C-2A`s embarked long ago. Or were they just visiting?

CODs usually traveled from ship to shore carrying jet engines and other cargo. Unless there was a malfunction they only used to visit. No room back in the days of full airwings.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth get go-ahead.