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

<a href="news_article2439.html">UK F-35 confidence as MOD orders aircraft carriers</a>

Yesterday in the UK, the two new CVF class carriers "HMS Prince of Wales" and "HMS Queen Elizabeth" were given full go-ahead and funding for construction. With in-service dates of 2014 and 2016.

Significantly, this go-ahead included the descision to use a ramp rather than EM Catapults in the ships initially although they can be retrofitted with them if necessary.

What does this mean for F-35? It means the UK is now officially commiting to the F-35B rather than a mixed fleet including the F-35C (this decision dictated what was to be procured).

The CVF class has a combat wing that will include up to 40 F-35B (realistic more around the 30-35 when factoring in helicopters).

Sadly, it is unknown if E-2D will be procured, I know tests are currently undergoing in the US to show the E-2D can take-off using a ramp however, there are no plans for arrestor gear to be fitted to either ship. So for the AWACs component the current favourites are the proposed AWACs version of the V-22 or the Merlin.

Size wise, approx, only US carriers are going to be bigger. Although I don't think it is smart to only have 2 carriers, 3 minimum should be acquired imho. France is also looking at purchasing a CVF class carrier fitted with EM catapults to supplement the Charles de Gaule.




Andy

Neither the Merlin or the V-22 are good choices for AWACS I think. Merlin would lack the range, performance and capacity, V-22 too much vibration. They would also need to be developed.

I understand the reason why there will be no catapult as there will be no steam plant to generate the steam needed to run it. I would think that if E-2 can launch off a ramp and have decent range then arresting gear would not be such a bad idea.

Obviously if these carriers operate as part of an American task force (oh no!), then this would not matter, but (and we all know how sensitive the British are) in order to be able to effectively conduct independent operations then I would think you need a real AWACs type platform.

Thats great news, its good to see the Royal Navy will finally have 'proper' aircraft carriers once again. With the new state of the art Type 45 destroyers and Astute attack class submarines not to mention a completely new Fleet Air arm, the Royal Navy will truly be reviving its capabilities lost over the years.

I do agree with you Andy when you say we need three, a task force being deployed to an area of enemy activity needs at least two decks in case of an accident on one. Always best to have another in reserve in case something else creeps up. But I'd say were lucky to get two as it is, typical British government never learns from past lessons.

We do need some form of effective AWACS on board, again the Falklands showed to the world how operating without AWACS can make warships venerable, so I hope they think of something to meet this requirement.

I'd say the carriers will be welcomed by the US navy, the Royal Navy and US Navy already cooperate a lot on ops. Being independent isn't bad at all Thumper, it means the USN wouldn't have to provide AWACS cover for a Royal Navy task force, and it also means both navies can provide cover for each other. It all increases combined flexibility on future coalition operations. Remember the Gulf war where the USS Missouri was targeted by Silkworm missiles, it was a Royal Navy destroyer that shot down the Silkworm missile with Sea Dart when the Phalanx on USS Jarrett fired at its own chaff. Independent platforms and weapon systems can make all the difference.

Thumper: The catapults designed for the CVF don't use steam, instead they are electromagnetic using the same principals as a maglev train. They are supposedly cheaper to operate than steam catapults and the French one (if built) will be fitted with them.

Andy

Also the acceleration of an EM catapult is easily controlled. With a steam catapult the acceleration is all or nothing. An EM catapult reduces the takeoff stress on the airframe.

I fully understand Maglev catapults. Fact is they are not there yet in terms of reliability, maintainability and cost. They may or may not be ready in 2012(which is around when you would need it for a 2015 in service date. Further,

Significantly, this go-ahead included the descision to use a ramp rather than EM Catapults in the ships initially although they can be retrofitted with them if necessary.

So why are you two ringing it up? Just to argue?

Yep - glad they went with the Ramps - they generally have a 100% reliability rate. The 801 Commander on Invincible in the Falklands put in his book all carriers should have them - and all planes should be capable of taking off without a runway - think he was a bit Harrier biased! well he is called Nigel "SHARkey" Ward I suppose.

If the ships are fitted for ramps and F-35 B, we will never see EM catapults fitted IMO. An AEW V-22 has been proposed by Bell/Boeing. Even if E2-D Advanced is purchased, arrestor cables can still be fitted whilst take off can be done safely by ramp.

The following from Beedall, Navy-matters...

"Early official MoD statements indicate that three options for the MASC requirement were being seriously considered:(2001).

* Rotary Wing. An AEW derivative of the AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin helicopter
* Tilt-Wing. An AEW derivative of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey
* Fixed-Wing. A UK variant of the Northrop Grumman E-2C Advanced Hawkeye".

My own best guess would be pillaging the Cerebus Maritime radar from the Seaking ASaC.7 and fitting it to Merlin for the AEW role, it is the cheapest option and our MOD is cheap!
Using Merlin would limit the AEW capability though. The RN was concerned that using a Helicopter would not give a new expensive carrier the sensor range it required, ie spotting enemy fighters leaving their flight deck to attack. Why that isn`t a concern now with the Invincible class carriers I will never know!

Congratulations, but.

Why oh why are they going with a ski jump and not catapults and arresting gear.

Going with anything less than a full blown AWACs on these carriers is in my opinion short sighted and foolish. It virtually precludes independent operations. There is no way that a heliborne or even v-22 based system will be even close to adequate in terms of range, persistance and survivablity.

The lack of a catapult will force the exclusive use of the much less capable F-35B.

The ski jump will not allow simultaneous launch and recovery of AC.

The list goes on. I fear this was done on a shoestring

Thumper3181 wrote:
The ski jump will not allow simultaneous launch and recovery of AC.

While my personal preference is using catapults and arresting gear, even the Nimitz Class carriers can only conduct minimal simultaneous launch and recovery. The reason is that when the landing area is being used for landing, the only staging area available for aircraft to takeoff (and park after recovery) is between the island and the cats. On US carriers with a full or nearly full air wing, most of that space is already occupied. You could also use cat #2 (the left bow cat) as a staging/parking area for awhile, but not for very long.

The only time I've seen continuous launch and recovery ops is during carrier qualifications when only a small number of aircraft are on the carrier.

The two elevators forward of the Island feed the bow cats ready areas. Planes are replenished from the HD. The fact is when it hits the fan you can launch and recover at once. Further, four cats will allow you to launch AC far quicker than a ski jump.

They should have spent a few billion more and went for two full size carriers or they should have stuck with building several improved Invincibles.

Frankly, since they went with the F-35Bs and a ski jump they should build 4 or 5 40,000 ton carriers instead. They could carry a useful complement of F-35s and ASW helicopters and they would be cheaper to own and operate. The carriers they are proposing are either too big to be light carriers and two small to be full sized carriers.

I agree that four cats are better than a ramp, but you still cannot conduct simultaneous launch and recovery for very long unless you have a significantly reduced number of aircraft onboard. The proper mix and number of aircraft is always a big question each time the CV gets underway.

While you have two elevators forward of the island, the aircraft have to have a place to go on the hangar deck. With a full or nearly full load of aircraft, the HD is basically a parking lot. You can do limited moves if you pre-position the up aircraft to get on the elevator, but that won't last for long. At some point you have to park the recovered aircraft for refueling, rearming, etc. Then there are the birds that are not Code 1 (even though the USN doesn't use that term) that need to be parked in a position where they can get the necessary maintenance.

Big decks are the way to go if you can afford them, but even they have their limitations.

No disagreement on big decks. I guess the point to be made is that they are far more flexible and capable. With carrier air wings these days running around 60-65 AC there should be plenty of space for plane movement.

My point about these carriers is that they could have done much better.

I get not fitting catapults but its a mistake not to have arresting gear. As it limits the types of aircraft that can operate from them. With the large E-2D Hawkeye being the most obvious...........also they can't cross deck with Allied Carriers from India, France, and the United States.

Corsair1963 wrote:I get not fitting catapults but its a mistake not to have arresting gear. As it limits the types of aircraft that can operate from them. With the large E-2D Hawkeye being the most obvious...........also they can't cross deck with Allied Carriers from India, France, and the United States.

Completely agree with you, arrestor gear should be fitted even if the F-35B is the exclusive Fighter on deck. However the carrier was designed to be flexible i.e Catapults and cables could be fitted if needed. Typical MoD doctrine; save money for as long as possible.

Thumper3181 wrote:The lack of a catapult will force the exclusive use of the much less capable F-35B.

Yes that is true however it was designed so catapults and arrestor cables could be fitted if needed. And the F-35B carries less fuel so has a reduced range, but I wouldn't call it less capable. Remember the advantages STOVL adds as well, including flexibility.

Thumper3181 wrote:They should have spent a few billion more and went for two full size carriers or they should have stuck with building several improved Invincibles.

Sorry I might have misinterpreted this but what do you class as a full size carrier? Are you basing it on size or aircraft complement? As size goes I would class the Charles de Gaulle as a full size carrier. Does the F-35B have fold up wings? CVF carriers I would imagine would be able to carry more conventional navy aircraft.

Thumper3181 wrote:The ski jump will not allow simultaneous launch and recovery of AC.

Right OK I'm not sure about this. If the F-35B is STOVL then its landing zone will be the size of that of a helicopter. The Ski jump runway doesn't take up all of the deck, so wouldn't STOVL recovery be feasible while launch operations are going on? The increased deck area gained by launching is made up by reduced area for recovery. I know there would be limitations decided by how many aircraft are on board, but is this possible? Again I don't really know much about this so please tell me if that is feasible at all.

---

I can see an advantage of using STOVL configuration instead of cats and cables and that is lower airframe fatigue on navy aircraft. With less stress on takeoff and landing thats got to improve aircraft life and reduce maintenance on both the aircraft and carrier systems. Then again the F-35 lift fan system is complicated so that could require increased maintenance, but at least there is less to go wrong on the carrier.

I do agree with all who say cables should be fitted, and remember these carriers were designed so that cats and cables could be added easily.