UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 04 Oct 2011, 00:58

Latest USN LSO newsletter PDF Oct 2011 has a story about CVF change over to F-35Cs with RN staff getting the gen for the future:

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2011.pdf (1.5Mb)

Building the Queen Elizabeth
"...Over the course of two weeks in September, officers from the Royal Navy and engineers from Air-craft Carrier Alliance (the company spearheading the design and development process) conducted a development seminar at the Landing Signal Officer School. In addition to the LSO School Staff, Captain Stoops (Former CVN-73 Air Boss) and CDR Bulis (Current CVN-75 Air Boss) were also in attendance to lend their expertise....

...After much debate and discussion, to include extensive LSO-related presentations by the LSO School Staff, the decision was made for the LSO Platform to be located at the exact same position in relation to the intended hook touchdown point as it is on our Nimitz class ships...."
MUCH MORE IN THE PDF!

FlightDreamz · by **FlightDreamz** » 04 Oct 2011, 04:47

I'm sure it's been mentioned before but having a "conventional" carrier does have the advantage of allowing the use of an E-2D Hawkeye A.W.A.C. Britain payed dearly for that lack in the Falklands War (and yeah I know they have a radar mounted on a helicopter but still). And hopefully Britain's second heli-carrier might still fly F-35B's someday.
The cross cooperation with France makes it easier to keep at least one carrier at sea as well. Just my :2c:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 04 Oct 2011, 08:27

The idea floated in the UKland today (probably to take attention away from the first F-35B VL aboard WASP) was this one (headline is a bit arseabout though?) See the last post on previous page of this thread. UK wants a cheap ride. IMHO they have made an huge mistake not proceeding with F-35Bs as planned. Still time to correct though - as always - watch this space.

We saw in the leadup to their momentous decision late last year that there was all kinds of speculation. This speculation will not stop. I don't believe anyone believes that the UKers have a clue about what they are doing. Their military - especially the RN FAA - does their best to keep up and to be flexible so I'm not knocking them at all. My tuppenceworth.

madrat · by **madrat** » 04 Oct 2011, 13:24

No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 12 Oct 2011, 10:20

CVF Cat/Trap Deck Graphics from BAE:
HighRezImage:
http://imagegallery.baesystems.investis ... V_Rear.JPG
http://imagegallery.baesystems.investis ... arSide.jpg

neptune · by **neptune** » 12 Oct 2011, 14:57

As capable as we hope the JSF will be, the one thing no "fast mover" has is persistance. The E-2 is necessary to not only to protect the capital ships but to have the long view, far beyond visual range (fbvr). Trading the expense of several JSFs for the cost of an E-2 is very cost effective vs. losing one capital ship. Oh, and lest one try to defend the inferior helicopter radar, "egg beaters" lack persistence also. Get an E-2, it is the better idea.

geogen · by **geogen** » 12 Oct 2011, 22:43

Neptune - You'd be surprised, RN won't actually have to trade too many 'several' F-35C for the acquisition of an E-2, maybe 2 jets?

But one might argue that it's probably more prudent and strategic to 'trade' something other than simply more tactical aviation shortfall than is already being piled on, over the next 10 yrs!? (what has it become now, the International Bank of JSF??) So, perhaps unless budget, I mean security requirements change to require fewer capital ships and less aviation off the top over the next 10 yrs, RN will probably want to find more creative and sustainable methods of acquiring/replacing core equipment and maintaining capabilities. imho.

stereospace · by **stereospace** » 13 Oct 2011, 00:42

CVF Cat/Trap Deck Graphics from BAE:

I guess if you're only going to build two aircraft carriers, you might as build real ones!

stereospace · by **stereospace** » 13 Oct 2011, 00:59

Wow. Those are really beautiful renderings! Kudos to the CG folks in the UK who put them together, top quality work. I'm guessing the RN FAA are salivating over the idea of those becoming reality.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 Oct 2011, 09:45

F-35 Makes First Carrier Landing; BAE Wins Alternative Helmet Contract 10 Oct 2011

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-ne ... t-contract

"...Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin UK market development manager Paul Livingston told AIN that the company is confident that the F-35C version can operate from the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier without modifications...."

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 13 Oct 2011, 12:30

stereospace wrote:Wow. Those are really beautiful renderings! Kudos to the CG folks in the UK who put them together, top quality work. I'm guessing the RN FAA are salivating over the idea of those becoming reality.

And i'm guessing our government are salivating over the thought of how much they can sell them off for too, afterall they've already done untold damage to the UK armed forces so selling the carriers off is the next logical step for them.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 Oct 2011, 13:37

Nah - buying 'Mystical Norse' Sea Gripens for 'em is the next step in this sorry UK 'SAGO'.

1st503rdsgt · by **1st503rdsgt** » 14 Oct 2011, 01:23

madrat wrote:No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.

What about a V-22 AEW variant? http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

FlightDreamz · by **FlightDreamz** » 14 Oct 2011, 02:07

madrawrt
No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.
1st503rdsqt replied
What about about a V-22 AEW variant? http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

My guess is that it's cost prohibitive. :shrug:

But it's definitely a better option than helicopter A.W.A.C.'s I would like to see that option explored further (but I'd be surprised to see that move past the concept phase).

geogen · by **geogen** » 14 Oct 2011, 05:16

1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.

What about a V-22 AEW variant? http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

I'd rather advocate for an CH-53K AEW variant. Meet your new boss. Whatever the avionics an hypothetical V-22 AEW could lift, add 50% for the -53k. Then you would begin to have some competition for an E-2D+.