Queen Liz Carrier with Full F-35B compiment versus?

[jessmo112]

So I had an interesting thought over at warzone.
They had an article on a Queen Elizabeth carrier and her strike group. In your opinion how will the British and the full up QE strike group fair against comparable strike groups. For the sake of argument we wont even count the U.S. here are other guys takes.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... diate=true

Keep in mind we arnt just counting the planes
Anti-ship weapons, Organic tanker, and Awacs all play a factor.
For comparisons sake all engagments should start from 200 miles out, and the carrier and escorts must locate track and engage OTH.

[Corsair1963]

Clearly, the F-35B gives the British a big edge over the Chinese and French.

[XanderCrews]

F-35, a Carrier thats based on Falklands and other combat experience, and the decades of STOVL experience. just by reputation the Royal Navy gets a big nod

[hornetfinn]

QEs are really capable ships with F-35B but it has some limitations due to not having catapult. So they are limited to helicopter based AEW systems and transportation. French Charles de Gaulle has the advantage of having catapults and can operate E-2s and C-2s (USN) along with Super Hornets (USN) for example. Maybe CdG will also be able to operate USN F-35Cs as well but naturally they use mainly Rafale Ms which are definitely good strike fighters although I think F-35B will significantly outperform it in almost all areas. I think that QE is overall more capable ship than CdG and definitely better than Chinese and Russian carriers are now or in the near future. Future Chinese carriers might be more capable ships but their air wings will likely still be inferior even if they get J-31s.

[hornetfinn]

Does anybody know the weight limits for F-35B operations from QE (if that info is public)? Can they take off near their 60,000 lb class max takeoff weights?

[spazsinbad]

That an F-35B can STO at RN Max Take off weight has been mentioned a few times in appropriate threads. I guess it needs quoting again? Stand by to STANDBY. First quote is from an RAF URL no longer available but perhaps wayback machine?

"maximum weapon payload of 6 Paveway IV, 2 AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2 AIM-132 ASRAAM & a missionised 25mm gun pod [pod seen as future armament]" http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35join ... ighter.cfm

AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL September 2014
300 Take-off run in feet from QEC for lightly loaded F-35B
800 Take-off run in feet from QEC for fully loaded F-35B

“...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump,...” [850+ feet are available for a STO aboard CVFs] 2204.62lbs = 1 tonne 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes [Wing Commander Hackett explained] http://content.yudu.com/A219ee/ETSWin12 ... ces/20.htm ETS winter 2012_13 LIGHTNING STRIKES

CVF STO Ski Jump Deck F-35B Sim Details Pilot [Pete Kosogorin BAE test pilot]: “...STO 800 feet with FULL operational load [F-35B CVF off Ski Jump]...” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxezKrL6apQ

[ricnunes]

IMO, carriers are (almost) as good as the combat aircraft they carry. Yes, there are other capabilities besides combat aircraft which may help define 'how good' a carrier is such as Air Defense and other weapon systems, support aircraft (such as AWACS), sensors, etc... but I strongly believe that 85% to 90% of 'how good' a carrier really is such is defined by its complement of combat aircraft.
For instance in WWII the US Navy started to become better than the Japanese Imperial Navy when it started to deploy much better and advanced aircraft such as the Hellcat and Corsair which clearly surpassed the Japanese aircraft and not necessarily when for example it started to deploy the Essex class carriers (although they still helped a lot).

Having AWACS/AEW aircraft on the carrier is also very important indeed but I think that the F-35 (this case the F-35B) can clearly overcome a combination of AWACS/AEW aircraft and 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.
Besides the British carriers also have the Merlin Crowsnest AEW Helicopter which and despite not being 'as good' as the E-2 it's still an AWACS/AEW aircraft.

As such I place the British clearly in 2nd place, mainly due to the F-35B.

[jessmo112]

Do strike weapons come into play?
Keep in mind that the Brits only have paveway to sink ships with ATM. The French have scalp and exocet.
Do you have confidence that F-35s could make it into gravity bomb range?

[sferrin]

Clearly, the F-35B gives the British a big edge over the Chinese and French.

If it had a full load, not what, TEN? Also China is developing a Hawkeye knockoff for it's carriers. Also, China will be putting either the J-20 or J-31 on their carriers.

[ricnunes]

Also, China will be putting either the J-20 or J-31 on their carriers.

Most likely, you'll will never see J-20's flying off from carriers! The J-20 is not a carrier capable aircraft and if I'm not mistaken even the Chinese admitted this.
There's a (somehow slim) chance regarding the J-31 flying from carriers but this is yet to be seen even because there are some doubts that the whole program will ever pass the prototype stage (let alone resulting in a carrier capable aircraft).

[ricnunes]

Do strike weapons come into play?
Keep in mind that the Brits only have paveway to sink ships with ATM. The French have scalp and exocet.
Do you have confidence that F-35s could make it into gravity bomb range?

Yes, I would say that they do. However I'm pretty sure that once the 'sh*t hits the fan' the British F-35Bs would have very quick access to most of the other weapons that the same F-35B can or will be able to carry. That's one of the reason why the UK and some other countries are part of alliances such as NATO.

Moreover, I've seen range figure for the Paveway IV (when released from high altitudes of course) as being more than 16 nautical miles or that it has more range than rival GPS weapons (JDAM, I gather), here:
http://www.pymes75.plus.com/military/pgb.htm
https://weaponsystems.net/system/189-Paveway+IV
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/p ... -continues

As such, I believe that the British F-35Bs (due to its stealth together with its EW features) should be able to engage any enemy ship at a 'safe distance' using the Paveway IV.

[milosh]

Most likely, you'll will never see J-20's flying off from carriers! The J-20 is not a carrier capable aircraft and if I'm not mistaken even the Chinese admitted this.
There's a (somehow slim) chance regarding the J-31 flying from carriers but this is yet to be seen even because there are some doubts that the whole program will ever pass the prototype stage (let alone resulting in a carrier capable aircraft).

Why J-20 wouldn't be carrier capable?

J-20 look lot like early F-35 proposal:
https://aviationhumor.net/the-joint-str ... m-history/

Also when Chinese admitted it isn't fitted for carrier fighter role?

[ricnunes]

Why J-20 wouldn't be carrier capable?

Size for starters and weight to continue. Resuming the J-20 is a very large is very heavy fighter/combat aircraft.
For instance you can read below:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ers-136207

That the J-20 is larger than the F-14 (despite the F-14 having a slightly higher take-off weight) while the old A-5 Vigilante was slightly longer but nonetheless lighter than the J-20.

Secondly, making the J-20 carrier capable will have an immediate effect: making the aircraft much and even more heavier than it already is! Strengthened landing gear and fuselage are a must for this but this will have a drastic (negative) effect on weight.

Third, you cannot just pick up a land based fighter/combat aircraft which is what the J-20 really is and 'voila' make it a carrier based aircraft! This is not how things work in 'this thing' called Real Life(TM)

Also when Chinese admitted it isn't fitted for carrier fighter role?

If you have had read carefully my last post you would have read the following:
"if I'm not mistaken..."
before my 'claim' that the Chinese admitted it [J-20] isn't fitted for carrier fighter role.

This means that I knew beforehand that I was probably jumping into a conclusion with that comment/assessment of mine. This was due to having read in the past that the Chinese were considering the J-31 for their carriers (instead of the J-20).
But and according to the link that posted above, it seems that the Chinese are now considering the J-20 for their carriers instead of the J-31. However I still think and believe that the J-20 won't be suited or suitable for carrier operations due to the reasons that I mentioned above in this same post.

[lbk000]

FWIW, I seem to recall it was the Navy that didn't like the canard configuration; tailed seemed to be more favorable for approach handling safety and that had a say in the F-35's final configuration?

[jessmo112]

Most likely, you'll will never see J-20's flying off from carriers! The J-20 is not a carrier capable aircraft and if I'm not mistaken even the Chinese admitted this.
There's a (somehow slim) chance regarding the J-31 flying from carriers but this is yet to be seen even because there are some doubts that the whole program will ever pass the prototype stage (let alone resulting in a carrier capable aircraft).

Why J-20 wouldn't be carrier capable?

J-20 look lot like early F-35 proposal:
https://aviationhumor.net/the-joint-str ... m-history/

Also when Chinese admitted it isn't fitted for carrier fighter role?

Ill give you reasons. The short answer is the J-20 is fat. Thr long answer.

1. Adding 5000 minimum pounds to an already stuggling TW ratio isnt a recipe for success. The extra wing area hook, land gear ect will cost atleast that much Thats 5000 lbs less fuel or weapons note this also goes for the J-31. It already needs AB just to stay level. It need to drop 5k not add on

2. Im not sure with this planforn that you can add enough wing to get the plane to trap at about 140 knots. If you cant trap and the plane cant get low and slow, then alot of bad things start happening.

3. Im not sure if you can see the carrier deck in the glide slope a theoretical Trapping J-20 would need..

4. How does the stealth coating hold up on the sea?

5. The Su-27 engine and all of its cousins and spin-offs are not suited, and ready for a naval enviorment. If you want proof take a look at the J-33.

China would probably be better off copying the Suoerhornet, or Rafael 1st.