Page 100 of 101

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 22:05
by spazsinbad
:doh: Sounds reasonable and not a mention of reliability of CVFs compared to TRIDENT - JOLLY GOOD SHOW OLD BEAN! :mrgreen:

Earlier in this now long running thread there was discussion/reporting of a lot of potential 'uses' for one and then two CVFs. It has not been all 'plane' sailing (coulda bin 'plane saleing' at one point) for use of two CVFs however the gubmint fairly recently committed to having the two (I'll have to get the exact wording now) & no mention of Tridents in regard to.

COMMITTED is an oft used word by Brits (but probably meaningless over time and the pollies know it):
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=300907&hilit=committed#p300907
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=276440&hilit=committed#p276440
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=277700&hilit=Cameron#p277700

2 page PDF of ARTICKLE BE LOW ATTACHED BeLow:
RULING THE WAVES AGAIN...
Dec 2015 Tim Ripley AirForces Monthly Magazine

"…In September 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron marked a key decision in the carrier programme when he committed
the Navy to standing up a “Continuous carrier capability”. The government had previously been unclear whether HMS Prince of Wales would enter service, leaving the Royal Navy taking ‘carrier strike capability holidays’ when HMS Queen Elizabeth had to go into dock for refit or repair. With both carriers in service one will always be ready to conduct operations with at least a squadron of F-35Bs embarked. The other ship could then be in refit, carrying out work-up training or employed as a commando carrier for the Royal Marines, with transport helicopters embarked.

The Royal Navy is making plans for a readiness cycle to synchronise this activity from the end of the decade, managing
availability and ensuring fixed-wing and helicopter squadrons are ready to operate from the vessels. According to Rear Admiral Blount, the carriers will always sail within a maritime task group including warships and support vessels. This protects them and makes them self-sustaining far out to sea, without support from land-based assets. This is the classic
embodiment of aircraft carriers, as mobile sovereign airfields that can be moved around the world unencumbered by the need to remain within range of land-based aircraft. He added: “The carriers will change the way the Royal Navy operates.”

The Navy is working on three main concepts of carrier operations to give future the UK a wide range of strategic options...."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine Dec 2015

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 22:20
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:Frankly, I thought to keep one carrier at sea, ready to go to war at all times, one would need 3-4 carriers. One at sea, one doing workups. One undergoing maintenance. And one doing... ??? dunno. A spare, I guess. But I figggerred, the Brits could only afford two, so they will make do with what they can afford. Discussing CVF... floating base for F-35B. Hope that's OK? :mrgreen:


Well, during the Falklands War the British also and only had two active Carriers (HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible) and they managed to deploy both to the Falklands (they didn't have the need to leave one undergoing maintenance of sorts).
So I imagine that these news CVFs are more reliable (maintenance wise) than those older carriers and if or when needed both could be put into service without any major hurdle.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 22:22
by steve2267
It's a right shame Her Majesty's gubbermint scrapped the Invincible class. They would have made a nice light carrier for the Lightning. The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales along with Illustrious, Invincible, and Ark Royal all carrying F-35Bs would make a formidable fleet. I dare say they may have been able to sortie two carrier battle groups for two separate conflagrations. Too bad the Brits couldn't afford it.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 22:26
by spazsinbad
Probably in this thread there is the rationale for not designing the F-35B for the Invincible Class. IIRC it was decided by the time the F-35Bs would be available the INVINCIBLES would be decommissioned - so they will not operate from same.

Once again 'pie in the sky' thinking ignores the cash strapped UK Gubmint coffers. How on earth can they operate all these carriers when we are apparently discussing 'how can they operate two CVFs'? "...Too bad the Brits couldn't afford it."? TOO BLOODY RIGHT - MATE. The same thing can be said by all countries about all things possible. You get what you can afford.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 00:32
by spazsinbad
Had time now to look for original article wot is here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28108&p=309365&hilit=Ripley#p309365

CVFs&F-35Bs AFM-Dec2015.pdf
download/file.php?id=22176 (4 page PDF 1.39Mb)

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 04:44
by beepa
As far as cakes go ...well this takes the cake. Can't help think that if that F35b was real the pilot would be watching it as he slowly floats down to the sea.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 06:47
by spazsinbad
MORE ON that CAKE! GOOD PICS 07 Dec 2017: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42254895
Queen Elizabeth commissioned as Royal Navy's new flagship
07 Dec 2017 Peter Felstead

"...Having recently completed a second stage of sea trials off the south coast of England, HMS Queen Elizabeth will now undergo final build activity [Bedford Array installed (or is it already installed)?] and prepare for helicopter trials in the new year. The ship will then head to the US East Coast in the autumn of 2018 for initial flight trials with the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) that will form its air wing."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/76243/quee ... w-flagship

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 23:01
by spazsinbad
Lots of links in this post then lots of links when links followed for more links for ancient history about CVFs and UK F-35Bs:

http://hrana.org/news/2017/12/britain-m ... issioning/

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 00:35
by tincansailor
steve2267 wrote:It's a right shame Her Majesty's gubbermint scrapped the Invincible class. They would have made a nice light carrier for the Lightning. The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales along with Illustrious, Invincible, and Ark Royal all carrying F-35Bs would make a formidable fleet. I dare say they may have been able to sortie two carrier battle groups for two separate conflagrations. Too bad the Brits couldn't afford it.



The carriers were getting a little long in the tooth. I'm not sure their hanger decks could accommodate F-35Bs. Even if they could their not buying enough Lightnings to outfit all those carriers. The bottom line is the brits just don't want to spend the money. They should have sold the Invincibles to Australia, Spain, Italy or some other country in the market for light carriers, or assault ships. Heck Egypt bought those two assault ships the French had been building for Russia. As long as they didn't sell them to Turkey it would have been ok.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 00:41
by spazsinbad
It is just a fantasy that Australia would want to buy the last Invincible with LHDs on the way - two of them & they are OK.

The F-35B WAS NOT designed for the INVINCIBLE CLASS - pure speculation that they could operate from them. The SHARs (Sea Harriers) were a tight fit and quite different to an F-35B in every respect except STOVL ops (unique to F-35B though).

It has been said time & again that the Harrier is NOT THE SAME as the F-35B - stop thinking that it is - it is easy to do that.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 12:19
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:It is just a fantasy that Australia would want to buy the last Invincible with LHDs on the way - two of them & they are OK.

The F-35B WAS NOT designed for the INVINCIBLE CLASS - pure speculation that they could operate from them. The SHARs (Sea Harriers) were a tight fit and quite different to an F-35B in every respect except STOVL ops (unique to F-35B though).

It has been said time & again that the Harrier is NOT THE SAME as the F-35B - stop thinking that it is - it is easy to do that.



It's no surprise sapaz that the hanger deck is too small. The America Class assault ships had to be modified to accommodate the F-35B. The Lightning is a good bit bigger, and heavier then the Harrier. The F-35B is 22 inches higher then the Sea Harrier FA-2, and has a greater empty weight then the FA-2's max take off weight. The F-35B is a little too big for the elevators, or lifts as the British would say. I doubt the lifts could handle the loaded weight of an F-35B. Remember if it doesn't fit the lift you have to omit.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 18:52
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:It is just a fantasy that Australia would want to buy the last Invincible with LHDs on the way - two of them & they are OK.

The F-35B WAS NOT designed for the INVINCIBLE CLASS - pure speculation that they could operate from them. The SHARs (Sea Harriers) were a tight fit and quite different to an F-35B in every respect except STOVL ops (unique to F-35B though).

It has been said time & again that the Harrier is NOT THE SAME as the F-35B - stop thinking that it is - it is easy to do that.



It's no surprise sapaz that the hanger deck is too small. The America Class assault ships had to be modified to accommodate the F-35B.


Not because of it's size. F-35Bs will be going on the earlier Wasp class as well (which F-35B testing has been done from).

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... s/wasp.htm

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 19:58
by spazsinbad
Jeepers size matters - from this forum (scale may not be accurate but compare the tonnage):

download/file.php?id=19115&mode=view

Image

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 20:07
by sferrin
Yep. The Wasp class, at 40,000 tons and change, would be right there next to the America class. Probably want to throw in the Japanese Izumo class at something like 25-30,000 tons as well.

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 20:09
by spazsinbad
Jeepers size matters - from this forum (scale may not be accurate - compare the tonnage - WASP similar AMERICA class):

download/file.php?id=19115&mode=view [not showing Japanese Izumo class - not operating HARRIERS]