New British Carriers, cutbacks and CATOBAR vs STOVL

[Mike Pryce]

It looks like the F-35B may now be the preferred UK version:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs

I am glad I have delayed finalising my slides for the P.1154 talk at the RAeS this week - the last few will look at the F-35B/C in comparison to the 1960s decisions.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The F-35B makes so much more sense for the RN it’s no surprise they are going back. The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C. Of course now that the Harrier is gone and the last carrier is a LPH gap fill they can safely renege on the F-35C and go back to the F-35B.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The F-35B makes so much more sense for the RN it’s no surprise they are going back. The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C. Of course now that the Harrier is gone and the last carrier is a LPH gap fill they can safely renege on the F-35C and go back to the F-35B.

Harrier is and was irrelevant to the change in F-35 variant, there was no need for any such political cover for deleting Harrier, the giant budget deficit did that and it explained the loss of two Tornado squadrons on top of the Harrier force (taking the UK down to 8 fast jet squadrons). F-35C was inserted because it is a more capable aircraft that flies further and carries more internally, F-35 (in whatever variant it comes in) is now the replacement for Tornado in the RAF (final numbers not to be decided until 2015) making that range and payload more important. It also had a pleasant side effect in that it would allow French Navy Rafales to operate from the UK carrier which then became part of the November 2010 Anglo-French Accord ("Integrated Carrier Strike Group"). Neither variant makes more or less sense for the Royal Navy given the small number of aircraft now expected to be operated from the QE class, in anything the small numbers (potentially just a dozen) would suggest that the more capable aircraft would be appropriate but at the end of the day it all comes down to money- or rather the lack of it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Harrier is and was irrelevant to the change in F-35 variant, there was no need for any such political cover for deleting Harrier, the giant budget deficit did that and it explained the loss of two Tornado squadrons on top of the Harrier force (taking the UK down to 8 fast jet squadrons).

It wasn’t as simple as that. Sure the British deficit which drove the whole SDR required massive cuts to the UK military but the question was what bits. By reshaping the carrier force from STOVL to CTOL an argument was made that the current STOVL force (Invincibles and Harriers) was not needed in the 2010s to maintain currency until the very different CTOL force was delivered. Therefore all the Harriers and carriers could be decommissioned. Which is great news if you were a submarine or Tornado driver.

F-35C was inserted because it is a more capable aircraft that flies further and carries more internally, F-35 (in whatever variant it comes in) is now the replacement for Tornado in the RAF (final numbers not to be decided until 2015) making that range and payload more important.

The whole nature of the joint F-35 is such that a split buy of As, Bs and Cs would still leverage a range of common features and support costs. F-35B and C for the RAF to replace Harrier and Tornado and F-35B for the RN to replace Sea Harrier.

Neither variant makes more or less sense for the Royal Navy given the small number of aircraft now expected to be operated from the QE class, in anything the small numbers (potentially just a dozen) would suggest that the more capable aircraft would be appropriate but at the end of the day it all comes down to money- or rather the lack of it.

No with only 12 fast jets on board it is far more important that they be F-35Bs with STOVL capability. Because they are far easier to launch, recover and turn around and do not need IFR enablers to be safe conducting flight operations outside of the reach of shore bases. A slight increase in radius and a slightly bigger internal bomb are far less important than being able to have aircraft in the air for a small carrier air wing. There is a good reason why since the 1960s and 70s most new carriers able to only carry a single squadron of fast jets have wanted to be STOVL.

 

[JFC Fuller]

It wasn’t as simple as that. Sure the British deficit which drove the whole SDR required massive cuts to the UK military but the question was what bits. By reshaping the carrier force from STOVL to CTOL an argument was made that the current STOVL force (Invincibles and Harriers) was not needed in the 2010s to maintain currency until the very different CTOL force was delivered. Therefore all the Harriers and carriers could be decommissioned. Which is great news if you were a submarine or Tornado driver.

It really was that simple. The whole force had to be cut some how, the submarine fleet could realistically go no further without hurting the industrial base (rebuilding it last time had been painful enough), the Army lost a Brigade (from six to five multirole) the navy lost frigates, the Air Force lost the Harrier fleet, two Tornado squadrons (so not especially great news if you were a Tornado driver), Nimrod MPA and the C-130J fleet from 2022 onwards. No argument was made about currency in relation to the F-35 decision, if it was, please provide a source for it. Indeed if anything the lack of currency was a concern with UK pilots already being dispatched to the US to fly Super Hornets. Directly from the 2010 SDSR, here is the justification given for the switch:

"But the last Government committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies. It will take time to rectify this error, but we are determined to do so. We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter with a longer range and able to carry more weapons. Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate in tandem with the US and French navies, and for American and French aircraft to operate from our carrier and vice versa."

The whole nature of the joint F-35 is such that a split buy of As, Bs and Cs would still leverage a range of common features and support costs. F-35B and C for the RAF to replace Harrier and Tornado and F-35B for the RN to replace Sea Harrier.

That was a very long time ago, Sea Harrier is dead, Harrier is dead, both fleets completely eliminated both as service types and as the force structure elements they constituted- current policy is for the UK F-35 buy (with total UK orders possibly as low as 50 a split buy is hardly an option) to replace the Tornado fleet and supplement 107 Typhoon's, there will be no Navy F-35 units, the UK will have 8 fast jet squadrons at most and less than half of those are likely to be F-35 equipped. And then there is the Anglo-French integrated carrier strike group which with both countries planning to operate only one carrier is the only way anything near a continuous availability is possible.

No with only 12 fast jets on board it is far more important that they be F-35Bs with STOVL capability. Because they are far easier to launch, recover and turn around and do not need IFR enablers to be safe conducting flight operations outside of the reach of shore bases. A slight increase in radius and a slightly bigger internal bomb are far less important than being able to have aircraft in the air for a small carrier air wing. There is a good reason why since the 1960s and 70s most new carriers able to only carry a single squadron of fast jets have wanted to be STOVL.

CTOL wings do not need IFR support, CTOL carriers are more than capable of keeping aircraft in the air. And we have been through this before, the F-35C range advantage is substantial; as of 2011 the B had a combat radius of 469 nautical miles versus 615 for the C. Could you provide a source from a STOVL carrier operator stating that the reason they moved to STOVL was because they had only one squadron their carriers? If you wish to carry on with this discussion please pick up from this reply which I made to you some months ago but to which you have never responded: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7323.msg123338.html#msg123338

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No argument was made about currency in relation to the F-35 decision, if it was, please provide a source for it. Indeed if anything the lack of currency was a concern with UK pilots already being dispatched to the US to fly Super Hornets. Directly from the 2010 SDSR, here is the justification given for the switch:

LOL. What you expect the SDR to provide a realistic eplanation for the location of its cuts. When it has nonsense statements like this:

"But the last Government committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies. It will take time to rectify this error, but we are determined to do so.

LOL. Do you really believe this nonsense political statement? Since when was cross decking been a normal part of international carrier operations? The CVF with F-35B would have no problems interoperating with USN and French carriers.

This is as ridiculous as planning your force structure based around what requires the longest lead time for investment in industry. Like nuclear submarines in place of carrier air power.

CTOL wings do not need IFR support, CTOL carriers are more than capable of keeping aircraft in the air. And we have been through this before, the F-35C range advantage is substantial; as of 2011 the B had a combat radius of 469 nautical miles versus 615 for the C. Could you provide a source from a STOVL carrier operator stating that the reason they moved to STOVL was because they had only one squadron their carriers?

LOL. Sure no need for IFR on a CTOL carrier. Perhaps you’d like to tell the US that. Of course one can fly without IFR but you can’t do so far over the horizon from a nearby shore base. As to the combat radius that is just the still air range divided in half. You add into that the kind of reserves that US carrier aircraft are flying with now, in the presence of on hand IFR, and that radius is a lot less. But what would they know about flying CTOL carriers?

As to your source mania tell me how many light carrier operators in the past 40 years have chosen STOVL and how many CTOL? The answer is six and two. The later two being both Brazil and India at a time where no STOVL aircraft were still in production. If you only have a handful of fighters onboard it’s much easier getting them in and out of the air with STOVL. Kind of the reason why the Harrier, Yak-38 and F-35B were developed in the first place.

If you wish to carry on with this discussion please pick up from this reply which I made to you some months ago but to which you have never responded: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7323.msg123338.html#msg123338

I gave up there like I’m about to give up here because you refuse to see any logic that isn’t already in your head. Sure you can ignore that when given a chance the RN wanted STOVL in the first place for very good reasons and obviously wants it back now. Lawrence knows better and he has the quotes to prove it!

 

[JFC Fuller]

LOL. What you expect the SDR to provide a realistic eplanation for the location of its cuts. When it has nonsense statements like this:

LOL. Do you really believe this nonsense political statement? Since when was cross decking been a normal part of international carrier operations? The CVF with F-35B would have no problems interoperating with USN and French carriers.

Yes, given it is an official policy document. Now please provide a source stating that the switch from CTOL to STOVL was a justification for removing the Harrier from service prematurely. Also, since the UK and France agreed to create an integrated Carrier Strike Group*, perhaps you could explain how a fully loaded Rafale is going to operate from a STOVL equipped QE class carrier?

This is as ridiculous as planning your force structure based around what requires the longest lead time for investment in industry. Like nuclear submarines in place of carrier air power.

Nothing ridiculous about it at all, a sensible military industrial policy ensuring that submarine construction remains constant as well as meeting defence needs.

LOL. Sure no need for IFR on a CTOL carrier. Perhaps you’d like to tell the US that. Of course one can fly without IFR but you can’t do so far over the horizon from a nearby shore base. As to the combat radius that is just the still air range divided in half. You add into that the kind of reserves that US carrier aircraft are flying with now, in the presence of on hand IFR, and that radius is a lot less. But what would they know about flying CTOL carriers?

I don't need to, they already know that, as long as one accepts the increased potential for the loss of an aircraft then the lack of a tanker will not prevent flight ops. Furthermore, it would not be impossible to produce a buddy refuelling system for the F-35 just as the USN has done with the Super Hornet, in fact the UK MoD is already studying this. Perhaps you could tell us what the landing reserve fuel margin is for each F-35 variant?

As to your source mania tell me how many light carrier operators in the past 40 years have chosen STOVL and how many CTOL? The answer is six and two. The later two being both Brazil and India at a time where no STOVL aircraft were still in production. If you only have a handful of fighters onboard it’s much easier getting them in and out of the air with STOVL. Kind of the reason why the Harrier, Yak-38 and F-35B were developed in the first place.

It is not source mania, it is fact mania, simply stating that a collection people did something for one particular reason without providing a credible reason for that is absurd. As for STOVL selection, none of them built ships big enough for CTOL operations, unless you are seriously suggesting that Garibaldi, Principe Asturias, the Invincibles and Shakri Naruebet could have been fitted with arrestor wires and catapults? The UK is building ships big enough for CTOL operations.

I gave up there like I’m about to give up here because you refuse to see any logic that isn’t already in your head. Sure you can ignore that when given a chance the RN wanted STOVL in the first place for very good reasons and obviously wants it back now. Sealord knows better and he has the quotes to prove it!

No, you realised that someone had called you out on your nonsense (like a CTOL carrier having to operate 100nm behind a STOVL one). It is self-evident why the UK is now reconsidering, it is because of the cost escalation that has occurred to the carrier programme as a consequence, the £1.9-2 billion mentioned in the Guardian article (the earliest estimates were as low as £500 million), but then you don't like facts do you? And yes, I do have the the quotes because I like facts, not opinions, fiction or the excessive and childish use of "LOL".

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, given it is an official policy document. Now please provide a source stating that the switch from CTOL to STOVL was a justification for removing the Harrier from service prematurely. Also, since the UK and France agreed to create an integrated Carrier Strike Group*, perhaps you could explain how a fully loaded Rafale is going to operate from a STOVL equipped QE class carrier?

Ahh yes an official political statement and full of factual reasoning. Like the claim that Her Majesty’s Government believes there is no short term need for an aircraft carrier but they would like to have the capability long term (the sentences before the section you quoted).

No short term need for an aircraft carrier from 2010-2020 like in operations against Libya, like increasing tensions in the Persian Gulf, further instability across Africa and across the middle east, like in a renewed Argentine diplomatic offensive against the Falklands (the last one of course had an invasion planned at the end of it). Not to mention covering a withdrawal from Afghanistan if local basing rights are withdrawn.

On the other hand clearly by this logic HMG believed there was a short term need for a submarine based nuclear deterrent, a long range, land based strike aircraft and a fleet of nuclear attack submarines… I wonder who the UK plans on nuking or interdicting in this decade?

LOL. Of course the real reasoning is provided in the political campaign document.

I don't need to, they already know that, as long as one accepts the increased potential for the loss of an aircraft then the lack of a tanker will not prevent flight ops. Furthermore, it would not be impossible to produce a buddy refuelling system for the F-35 just as the USN has done with the Super Hornet, in fact the UK MoD is already studying this. Perhaps you could tell us what the landing reserve fuel margin is for each F-35 variant?

Ahh yes I’m sure the RN is going to accept an increased likelihood of the loss of those previous few F-35Cs… And of course a buddy tank capability can be developed but it actually needs to. And then what happens? Of those 12 aircraft you now only have 10 available for combat operations as the other two are needed for IFR. Mmmm… the capability case of the F-35C vs F-35B just suffered a 17% reduction in unit numbers to provide the buddy IFR capability.

Ohh yes and dispute everything I say because I can’t quote figures that aren’t even concrete yet. But the reserve providing in the F-35C ~700 NM radius mission is the bare basic fuel reserve and far lower than currently in practise. As has been demonstrated in this forum before.

It is not source mania, it is fact mania, simply stating that a collection people did something for one particular reason without providing a credible reason for that is absurd. As for STOVL selection, none of them built ships big enough for CTOL operations, unless you are seriously suggesting that Garibaldi, Principe Asturias, the Invincibles and Shakri Naruebet could have been fitted with arrestor wires and catapults? The UK is building ships big enough for CTOL operations.

Firstly I never counted the Thai Navy in those numbers because they never had a credible carrier capability. And yes all those light carriers could have been CTOL carriers if designed from scratch for it. They could all operate ~20-25,000 lb CTOL aircraft like the Skyhawk and Tracker and modern equivalents if need be. But the key experience from operating small, individual carriers compared to battle groups of multiple super carriers is the need for quick response launch and recovery capability which is why the Harrier was sent to sea in the first place and was so successful. The future RN carrier sailing the world with only 12 F-35s onboard is very much going to want F-35Bs that they can launch and recover flexibly with minimum fuss and sustain flight operations for long periods of time compared to the F-35C.

No, you realised that someone had called you out on your nonsense (like a CTOL carrier having to operate 100nm behind a STOVL one).

I gave reasons then which you rejected because they weren’t quoted in the Guardian or whatever. A STOVL carrier can operate closer to the enemy because it is more flexible in its flight operations. It doesn’t need to fly cyclic events into the wind with launches needed to clear the deck to recover nor is it limited to limited periods of flight operations because of the crewing demands of its flight deck, launch and recovery equipment. This has been demonstrated multiple times in NATO exercises and was a significant criticism of the HM Govt’s failure to deploy a carrier to ODS.

It is self-evident why the UK is now reconsidering, it is because of the cost escalation that has occurred to the carrier programme as a consequence, the £1.9-2 billion mentioned in the Guardian article (the earliest estimates were as low as £500 million), but then you don't like facts do you? And yes, I do have the the quotes because I like facts, not opinions, fiction or the excessive and childish use of "LOL".

Ahh yes Government deliberations are always entirely as laid out in their press releases. The increasing cost of the carrier is caught up in part by the changed requirements and no doubt those in the RN who want STOVL back because it’s a better solution (which they wanted in the first place) are taking advantage of this.

And BTW it isn’t childish to laugh at someone when they do funny things. Its what makes being an adult bearable. But it is very childish to get upset when laughed at…

 

[JFC Fuller]

Ahh yes an official political statement and full of factual reasoning. Like the claim that Her Majesty’s Government believes there is no short term need for an aircraft carrier but they would like to have the capability long term (the sentences before the section you quoted).

No short term need for an aircraft carrier from 2010-2020 like in operations against Libya, like increasing tensions in the Persian Gulf, further instability across Africa and across the middle east, like in a renewed Argentine diplomatic offensive against the Falklands (the last one of course had an invasion planned at the end of it). Not to mention covering a withdrawal from Afghanistan if local basing rights are withdrawn.

None of which were as severe in 2010 and none of which trumped the need to reduce UK public spending, and the Harrier GR fleet covering an Afghan withdrawal from the deck of an Invincible, seriously?

On the other hand clearly by this logic HMG believed there was a short term need for a submarine based nuclear deterrent, a long range, land based strike aircraft and a fleet of nuclear attack submarines… I wonder who the UK plans on nuking or interdicting in this decade?

No, it believed there was a long term need, which is precisely why it chose to sustain the industry for submarines and authorise vessels which will not be in service for a decade or more. It also decided that there was a short term need for aircraft in Afghanistan, which is where the Tornado was deployed in 2010. That aircraft also offered a unique capability compared to both Typhoon and Harrier at the time in that it carries Storm Shadow (used against Libya) and the RAPTOR pod.

Ahh yes I’m sure the RN is going to accept an increased likelihood of the loss of those previous few F-35Cs… And of course a buddy tank capability can be developed but it actually needs to. And then what happens? Of those 12 aircraft you now only have 10 available for combat operations as the other two are needed for IFR. Mmmm… the capability case of the F-35C vs F-35B just suffered a 17% reduction in unit numbers to provide the buddy IFR capability.

And? Its called a trade-off.

Ohh yes and dispute everything I say because I can’t quote figures that aren’t even concrete yet. But the reserve providing in the F-35C ~700 NM radius mission is the bare basic fuel reserve and far lower than currently in practise. As has been demonstrated in this forum before.

So provide a link to said demonstration. Furthermore, by your own admission you do not know what the reserve fuel margin is for each F-35 type which means that your entire argument is currently based on nothing but your own opinion and inventions. Just to remind you, as of 2011, F-35B combat radius was 469 nautical miles versus 615 for the F-35C.

Firstly I never counted the Thai Navy in those numbers because they never had a credible carrier capability. And yes all those light carriers could have been CTOL carriers if designed from scratch for it. They could all operate ~20-25,000 lb CTOL aircraft like the Skyhawk and Tracker and modern equivalents if need be. But the key experience from operating small, individual carriers compared to battle groups of multiple super carriers is the need for quick response launch and recovery capability which is why the Harrier was sent to sea in the first place and was so successful. The future RN carrier sailing the world with only 12 F-35s onboard is very much going to want F-35Bs that they can launch and recover flexibly with minimum fuss and sustain flight operations for long periods of time compared to the F-35C.

It does not matter who you counted, it is an absurd suggestion. Now please provide a single source stating that the reason these small carriers carry Harriers over CTOL aircraft is because of the need to rapidly launch and recover aircraft rather than because of the fact that at 20,000 tons displacement and 200m in length or less they are smaller even than HMAS Melbourne, otherwise it is just something else you have made up.

I gave reasons then which you rejected because they weren’t quoted in the Guardian or whatever. A STOVL carrier can operate closer to the enemy because it is more flexible in its flight operations. It doesn’t need to fly cyclic events into the wind with launches needed to clear the deck to recover nor is it limited to limited periods of flight operations because of the crewing demands of its flight deck, launch and recovery equipment. This has been demonstrated multiple times in NATO exercises and was a significant criticism of the HM Govt’s failure to deploy a carrier to ODS.

You gave reasons which you had invented and which were then demonstrated to be wrong, and once again you failed to provide a single source or piece of evidence. Erm, ODS, Desert Storm? When the UK had no CTOL carrier? When the versatility of large CTOL carriers over STOVL was perfectly demonstrated by a combination of long range sorties from ships in the med and operations in narrow seas like the Gulf?

Ahh yes Government deliberations are always entirely as laid out in their press releases. The increasing cost of the carrier is caught up in part by the changed requirements and no doubt those in the RN who want STOVL back because it’s a better solution (which they wanted in the first place) are taking advantage of this.

So provide a single source or shred of evidence, which you have not so far. And there has not even been a press release yet so calm down. But once again, if there is a change the reason is obvious, it is the cost escalation.

And BTW it isn’t childish to laugh at someone when they do funny things. Its what makes being an adult bearable. But it is very childish to get upset when laughed at…

Funny things, like when people make things up to support unsustainable arguments? in that case LOL!

As a reminder, your base assertion was as follows:

The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C.

Now if this was actually a political justification you will be able to provide an example of it being used, which despite being asked you have still not done?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

None of which were as severe in 2010 and none of which trumped the need to reduce UK public spending, and the Harrier GR fleet covering an Afghan withdrawal from the deck of an Invincible, seriously?

No, it believed there was a long term need, which is precisely why it chose to sustain the industry for submarines and authorise vessels which will not be in service for a decade or more.

Which demonstrates the lack of operational strategic thinking in the SDR. Plenty of economica strategic thinking but very little concern for the ability of the UK forces to respond to crisis and actually defend the interests of HMG with armed force. Carriers provide an inherent flexibility that covers the entire gamut of potential conflicts whereas submarines and others are limited in operational use. You may dismiss the Harrier and Invincible but in a range of scenarios, including a covering a possible withdrawal from Afghanistan after Pakistan closes its territory to NATO use it is better than nothing. Better than flying Tornados from Diego Garcia!

It also decided that there was a short term need for aircraft in Afghanistan, which is where the Tornado was deployed in 2010. That aircraft also offered a unique capability compared to both Typhoon and Harrier at the time in that it carries Storm Shadow (used over Libya) and the ARPTOR pod.

And these are not unique capabilities that only a Tornado could provide as they could be migrated to other aircraft.

And? Its called a trade-off.

Cutting your force by 17% is never a good start to a trade off…

So provide a link to said demonstration. Furthermore, by your own admission you do not know what the reserve fuel margin is for each F-35 type which means that your entire argument is currently based on nothing but your own opinion and inventions. Just to remind you, as of 2011, F-35B combat radius was 469 nautical miles versus 615 for the F-35C.

The recovery fuel margins at design and so on have been covered in previous discussions. Do I really need to look it up just to make you happy? From memory the recovery fuel margin for the F-35C was around 15 minutes of extra flying after a bolter. Tough luck if you have to que for a tanker. That is if you have one. Then of course what if you have to bring back stores because you were on a CAS patrol… That recovery fuel margin is going to go way up and your radius down.

It does not matter who you counted, it is an absurd suggestion. Now please provide a single source stating that the reason these small carriers carry Harriers over CTOL aircraft is because of the need to rapidly launch and recover aircraft rather than because of the fact that at 20,000 tons displacement and 200m in length or less they are smaller even than HMAS Melbourne, otherwise it is just something else you have made up.

LOL. You really have invented something here in your desire to manipulate my arguments. Which was that if you are only carrying a 12 or less fighters STOVL provides lots of benefits compared to CTOL. Contemporary light carriers could be CTOL if their operators wanted them to be. The program that sparked the revival was the USN’s Sea Control Ship which included a small CTOL carrier with a port to starboard angled landing deck overlaid on the takeoff deck. And of course there is the light fleet carrier which you mentioned. But like in the case of INS Vikrant as soon as STOVL fighters became available the CTOL aircraft were sent to shore and replaced. And not for want of viable competition as Dassault would attest too.

You gave reasons which you had invented and which were then demonstrated to be wrong, and once again you failed to provide a single source or piece of evidence. Erm, ODS, Desert Storm? When the UK had no CTOL carrier? When the versatility of large CTOL carriers over STOVL was perfectly demonstrated by a combination of long range sorties from ships in the med and operations in narrow seas like the Gulf?

Well the RN had no carrier in operation during ODS but CENTCOM wanted Ark Royal to be deployed and the request was lost in the paperwork and the RAF brass running the UK forces at the time had no problems not tasking it. But the USN had both STOVL and CTOL carriers in operations during ODS. And where was USS Nassau operating as a ‘Harrier Carrier’ compared to the CTOL carriers? Mmmm about 100 NM closer to Kuwait… I wonder why? Obviously for reasons I invented and you have demonstrated to be wrong.

Ohh no I haven’t provided a single quote! Obviously USS Nassau was never in the Gulf, never flew 53 Harrier missions in ten hours despite not have been designed as a carrier and deficient of a huge range of facilities needed to sustain flight operations.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Which demonstrates the lack of operational strategic thinking in the SDR. Plenty of economica strategic thinking but very little concern for the ability of the UK forces to respond to crisis and actually defend the interests of HMG with armed force. Carriers provide an inherent flexibility that covers the entire gamut of potential conflicts whereas submarines and others are limited in operational use. You may dismiss the Harrier and Invincible but in a range of scenarios, including a covering a possible withdrawal from Afghanistan after Pakistan closes its territory to NATO use it is better than nothing. Better than flying Tornados from Diego Garcia!

Come of it, the idea of an Invincible with Harriers (no credible A2A capability either) covering an Afghan withdrawal is absurd. What the SDSR demonstrates is that the UK defence spending had to be cut, and certain assets were culled over others, especially when those capabilities were limited anyway, Harrier effectively being nothing more than a light attack aircraft with a limited weapons selection. Better than nothing? You mean better than the eleven fleet carriers of the USN? The de Gaul and the US Harrier carrying amphibs?

And these are not unique capabilities that only a Tornado could provide as they could be migrated to other aircraft.

Only over time, integration of those systems was and is years away whilst Tornado was deployed in Afghanistan then. Indeed it is ultimately planned to integrate Storm Shadow into Typhoon, but not yet. From a short term perspective the Tornado offered greater capability and was in use in Afghanistan.

Cutting your force by 17% is never a good start to a trade off…

It is if it gives you a greater range, a superior weapons load and superior bring-back capability and enables you to create an Integrated Carrier Strike Group with your nearest neighbour and one of your closest allies.

The recovery fuel margins at design and so on have been covered in previous discussions. Do I really need to look it up just to make you happy? From memory the recovery fuel margin for the F-35C was around 15 minutes of extra flying after a bolter. Tough luck if you have to que for a tanker. That is if you have one. Then of course what if you have to bring back stores because you were on a CAS patrol… That recovery fuel margin is going to go way up and your radius down.

So you keep saying, so tell us what they are, or I will just have to assume you are making them up. I would also like a source stating that the F-35 combat radius requirement excludes fuel reserves.

LOL. You really have invented something here in your desire to manipulate my arguments. Which was that if you are only carrying a 12 or less fighters STOVL provides lots of benefits compared to CTOL. Contemporary light carriers could be CTOL if their operators wanted them to be. The program that sparked the revival was the USN’s Sea Control Ship which included a small CTOL carrier with a port to starboard angled landing deck overlaid on the takeoff deck. And of course there is the light fleet carrier which you mentioned. But like in the case of INS Vikrant as soon as STOVL fighters became available the CTOL aircraft were sent to shore and replaced. And not for want of viable competition as Dassault would attest too.

So still no sources then, just your opinion. There is a multitude of potential reasons why India may have chosen the Sea Harrier over something like the Super Etendard. Nothing you have stated proves your point. STOVL is cheaper and works better with small carriers, that's the most obvious reason. So unless you can provide a source to the contrary we will just chalk this one up as another Gubby fabrication.

Well the RN had no carrier in operation during ODS but CENTCOM wanted Ark Royal to be deployed and the request was lost in the paperwork and the RAF brass running the UK forces at the time had no problems not tasking it. But the USN had both STOVL and CTOL carriers in operations during ODS. And where was USS Nassau operating as a ‘Harrier Carrier’ compared to the CTOL carriers? Mmmm about 100 NM closer to Kuwait… I wonder why? Obviously for reasons I invented and you have demonstrated to be wrong.

Ohh no I haven’t provided a single quote! Obviously USS Nassau was never in the Gulf, never flew 53 Harrier missions in ten hours despite not have been designed as a carrier and deficient of a huge range of facilities needed to sustain flight operations.

I never said Nassau was not in the Gulf, yet another of your fabrications, and just because Nassau was deployed closer to shore (which she should be anyway as she is an Amphib; and that was the role she was undertaking) it does not prove that CTOL carriers can not operate close to shore, in fact the contrary is demonstrated by the fact that carrier operating area 4 is only 40NM from Bushehr.

And once again, your original assertion was as follows:

The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C.

You have still yet to provide a single example of this argument being used so we can only assume that you are making that up as well.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Come of it, the idea of an Invincible with Harriers (no credible A2A capability either) covering an Afghan withdrawal is absurd.

It is absurd if YOU imagine it to be HMS Invincible with 12 GR.5 Harriers all on its own vs all of the armed forces Pakistan, Iran and China. But of course that’s a ridiculous scenario. But what isn’t ridiculous is if the UK Forces had to provide air cover without local basing or logistics rights. For which there are many rational reasons short of World War Baluchistan.

It’s just one of many scenarios in which carrier basing provides a sovereign capability without a ‘as you please’ from local nations. Something one would assume was of reasonable priority considering how many UK forces are located at the end of quite tenuous supply lines in this decade.

What the SDSR demonstrates is that the UK defence spending had to be cut, and certain assets were culled over others, especially when those capabilities were limited anyway, Harrier effectively being nothing more than a light attack aircraft with a limited weapons selection. Better than nothing? You mean better than the eleven fleet carriers of the USN? The de Gaul and the US Harrier carrying amphibs?

I don’t disagree that the UK Forces had to have their funding cut but just that the direction it was cut was not in their best interests. As to the French and US carriers providing capability this argument applies as well to nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles. Why the UK needs its own nuclear missile capability when the US can quite simply provide umbrella coverage and is happy to do so is beyond rational explanation. On the other hand the UK has a huge range of sovereign security needs and major contributions requiring carrier support.

It is if it gives you a greater range, a superior weapons load and superior bring-back capability and enables you to create an Integrated Carrier Strike Group with your nearest neighbour and one of your closest allies.

The range and weapons load differences are extremely minor especially compared to a 17% reduction in available aircraft just by the need to provide recovery security. The idea that only a CTOL carrier aircraft provides an Integrated Carrier Strike Group is ridiculous. The F-35B will integrate as well with a US carrier group as an F-35C.

You only need to land your aircraft on other people’s carriers if you buy the CTOL aircraft! If you have a STOVL aircraft then you have your second unmodified carrier to fly from when carrier no. 1 is in the shop. It’s an entirely circular argument.

So you keep saying, so tell us what they are, or I will just have to assume you are making them up. I would also like a source stating that the F-35 combat radius requirement excludes fuel reserves.

Gawd knows what you are thinking but I certainly aren’t saying that the F-35C radius figure is without a fuel reserve. And despite your shrieking I aren’t going to invest the time to look up something that is in this forum that you can do yourself.

So I never said Nassau was not in the Gulf, yet another of your fabrications, and just because Nassau was deployed closer to shore (which she should be anyway as she is an Amphib; and that was the role she was undertaking) it does not prove that CTOL carriers can not operate close to shore, in fact the contrary is demonstrated by the fact that carrier operating area 4 is only 40NM from Bushehr.

Nassau was not there as an amphibious landing ship but to provide BAI and CAS to forces ashore with her jets and sea control with her helos. Not a very different mission to the super carriers. Plus I never said anything about STOVL carriers being able to sail closer to shore but closer to the enemy. Despite their nastiness the Gulf War was against Iraq not Iran unless you want to insist on further revision.

You have still yet to provide a single example of this argument being used so we can only assume that you are making that up as well.

Like I said at the conclusion of this debate last time back in April last year there is no way I could convince YOU that the Earth is round if you thought it flat. There is nothing new here and no reason to continue this.

 

[JFC Fuller]

]It is absurd if YOU imagine it to be HMS Invincible with 12 GR.5 Harriers all on its own vs all of the armed forces Pakistan, Iran and China. But of course that’s a ridiculous scenario. But what isn’t ridiculous is if the UK Forces had to provide air cover without local basing or logistics rights. For which there are many rational reasons short of World War Baluchistan.

It’s just one of many scenarios in which carrier basing provides a sovereign capability without a ‘as you please’ from local nations. Something one would assume was of reasonable priority considering how many UK forces are located at the end of quite tenuous supply lines in this decade.

The capability was marginal, the budget had to be cut, so the capability went- it is really that simple. The risk was taken and so be it. And let us not forget all those other countries that do not have aircraft carriers that are currently in Afghanistan. And why would they be GR.5s? All the in service aircraft had been upgraded to GR.9 standard.

I don’t disagree that the UK Forces had to have their funding cut but just that the direction it was cut was not in their best interests. As to the French and US carriers providing capability this argument applies as well to nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles. Why the UK needs its own nuclear missile capability when the US can quite simply provide umbrella coverage and is happy to do so is beyond rational explanation. On the other hand the UK has a huge range of sovereign security needs and major contributions requiring carrier support.

Because the UK has a standing policy for an "independent" (one can argue its actual independence until the cows come home) deterrent, it has this for very long term perceived strategic needs. In addition the Anglo-French accord includes provision for coordinated SSBN patrols whilst the UK capability was cut, the number of missiles carried by a UK SSBN is being reduced to 8 with a total of just 40 warheads (down from 48) and the total UK nuclear warhead stockpile is being reduced to no more than 180 from 225, on top of that further economies were introduced into the successor programme. So the deterrent hardly escaped unscathed either. The carrier capability was considered a temporary cut that would reduce short term spending and allow for a compression of the fast jet fleet to reduce long term spending.

The range and weapons load differences are extremely minor especially compared to a 17% reduction in available aircraft just by the need to provide recovery security. The idea that only a CTOL carrier aircraft provides an Integrated Carrier Strike Group is ridiculous. The F-35B will integrate as well with a US carrier group as an F-35C.

You only need to land your aircraft on other people’s carriers if you buy the CTOL aircraft! If you have a STOVL aircraft then you have your second unmodified carrier to fly from when carrier no. 1 is in the shop. It’s an entirely circular argument.

You keep saying this but have still not provided any evidence or sources, so another reminder for you, as of 2011 the combat radius of the B was 469 versus 615 NM for the C (certainly not minor) not to mention the bring-back issues. Without some actual evidence your "extremely minor" claim is pure fiction. Furthermore, you have completely ignored the whole point of the Anglo-French Integrated Carrier Strike Group concept, it involves Rafales being able to operate of the UK carrier as well as vice-versa. I have asked you this before, and you ignored it, how do you expect a fully loaded Rafale to operate from a UK carrier without catapults?

Gawd knows what you are thinking but I certainly aren’t saying that the F-35C radius figure is without a fuel reserve. And despite your shrieking I aren’t going to invest the time to look up something that is in this forum that you can do yourself.

So you actually have no idea what the fuel reserve allowance is for the F-35C? So all your ranting about fuel reserves reducing the combat radius advantage of the C variant was based on nothing but your uninformed opinion?

Nassau was not there as an amphibious landing ship but to provide BAI and CAS to forces ashore with her jets and sea control with her helos. Not a very different mission to the super carriers. Plus I never said anything about STOVL carriers being able to sail closer to shore but closer to the enemy. Despite their nastiness the Gulf War was against Iraq not Iran unless you want to insist on further revision.

Erm, yes she was there as an amphib, which is why she carried a Marine unit and launched a heliborn assault against an Iraqi held Island. In fact she was even the flag ship of the 4th MEB and Amphibious Group 2. So what if the war was against Iraq? The point is that a carrier can operate within 40nm of shore. In the 1980s the USN even felt it could operate carriers in the Norwegian Fjiords and around the Aleutian Islands. This whole notion that a CTOL carrier has to be 100nm behind a STOVL one is just something you have invented.

Like I said at the conclusion of this debate last time back in April last year there is no way I could convince YOU that the Earth is round if you thought it flat. There is nothing new here and no reason to continue this.

And like April last year I am not asking you to prove the world is round, I am asking you to provide a single piece of evidence to support an assertion that you made. In this case it is the following statement:

The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C.

If this was true the argument would have been made and you would be able to show it was made, but you have not so we can only assume that this is just another one of your fabrications.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Lawrence your ability to maliciously change the statements of others and bullishly insist you’re your falsehoods despite all attempts to set you straight show you up as a miscreant.

I’ve never made a statement that conventional carriers can’t operate close to shore but rather that STOVL carriers can operate closer to a threat thanks to their launch and recovery flexibility. Something that has been demonstrated multiple times including during Operation Desert Storm.

Which apparently you reject because you claim USS Nassau was just another amphibious ship despite its roles in ODS being a Harrier Carrier, sea control platform and emergency mass casualty receiving ship. The marines which stormed some of the Kuwaiti Islands were launched from the amphibious group centred on USS Okinawa. When this landing happened Nassau was anchored in Gulf of Oman after providing cover to the SEAL ops in Sea Soldier IV.

For the rest all you do is claim my opinions are fabrications and refute everything by demanding sources. You’re a broken record with no capacity to display any thought and fluff your facts to cover up the holes in your arguments. That you constantly fall back to demands for citations even on issues that have been explained and cited in this very thread shows you up as a lawyer rather than a thinker.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Lawrence your ability to maliciously change the statements of others and bullishly insist you’re your falsehoods despite all attempts to set you straight show you up as a miscreant.

From somebody who founds entire arguments on fabrications I will take that as a compliment, my thanks to you.

I’ve never made a statement that conventional carriers can’t operate close to shore but rather that STOVL carriers can operate closer to a threat thanks to their launch and recovery flexibility. Something that has been demonstrated multiple times including during Operation Desert Storm.

No it has not been demonstrated, in fact desert storm demonstrated the opposite, it demonstrated that carriers can both operate in confined and crowded sea ways and that the range advantage of CTOL aircraft enables flexibility including offering additional attack directions and the ability to hold ships back further from the coast to reduce their vulnerability to drifting mines, FACs and shore based missiles. The Carriers were held back (but progressively moved into the Gulf and then further up it) because they could be, not because of any fundamental limitation in CTOL carrier operations, as demonstrated by the fact that Carrier Operating Area 4 is just 40nm from Bushehr. In fact the USN Pacific fleet spent a large part of the 80s developing techniques for operations in Near-Land Operating Areas (NLOAs).

Which apparently you reject because you claim USS Nassau was just another amphibious ship despite its roles in ODS being a Harrier Carrier, sea control platform and emergency mass casualty receiving ship. The marines which stormed some of the Kuwaiti Islands were launched from the amphibious group centred on USS Okinawa. When this landing happened Nassau was anchored in Gulf of Oman after providing cover to the SEAL ops in Sea Soldier IV.

I reject the claim because Nassau was flagship of the 4th MEB and Amphibious Group 2, she was self-evidently there as an amphibious asset in addition to her provision of CAS. However, the reduced radius of action of the Harrier meant that to provide that she had to further up the Gulf, where she was more vulnerable. And please stop the fabrications, I never said she was "just another amphibious ship".

For the rest all you do is claim my opinions are fabrications and refute everything by demanding sources. You’re a broken record with no capacity to display any thought and fluff your facts to cover up the holes in your arguments. That you constantly fall back to demands for citations even on issues that have been explained and cited in this very thread shows you up as a lawyer rather than a thinker.

It is amusing how you always resort to insults when your arguments are systematically demolished, it is especially amusing that that you are angered by my requests for evidence and facts rather than fabrications and opinions. Even when you state that something has previously been explained in another thread you are somehow unable to link that thread or repeat the explanation and source in the present. However, all this is an aside, the fundamental point that makes you look so silly is this. Your original assertion was as follows:

The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide just a single example of this argument being used, you have completely ignored those requests. The reason for this is simple, the assertion that you made was a pure fabrication and exists only in your imagination.

 

[shedofdread]

A query - Ok, lets assume Uk buys *some* F35Bs, yes they can operate from our French friend's deck BUT how will their Rafales operate from our's (no cats'n'traps)? Or is that now going to be quietly forgotten?

 

[Grey Havoc]

A query - Ok, lets assume Uk buys *some* F35Bs, yes they can operate from our French friend's deck BUT how will their Rafales operate from our's (no cats'n'traps)? Or is that now going to be quietly forgotten?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Speaking of (former) Harrier carriers, HMS Illustrious has been having a particularly bad month.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Latest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272

Seems the PM will decide - I expect he'll take the egg on the face in return for the savings. And blame Liam Fox (ex Sec Def) for the initial decision to go for cats and traps.

 

[shedofdread]

Ok, the FAA gets the 'B' but if F35 is to ultimately replace Tornado, how will the 'lack of range' conundrum be solved? It would appear from a quick google that a GR4 has about twice the radius of action of a 'B'.

Time to dust off the plans for Tonka2000?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Actual Tornado ranges are not quoted online, but a Typhoon cruising at altitude can beat a Tornado GR.4 (and does not need to do IFR at 20,000 ft or lower with partial reheat!).

Tornado was point designed to fly in the weeds. At altitude it becomes a weed - in some scenarios a Harrier GR.9 (wing designed for mid-altitude cruise) had longer legs.

Uh oh, I sense a flame war....

 

[Thorvic]

I think the carrier conversion costs are a bit of a smokescreen, as probably include additional costs for the next eight years crew training, a fee to the ACA to keep the POW in the shipyards longer than originally planned and no doubt the added costs of adapting the F-35C for buddy refuelling. We already have a cost estimate of the EMALS gear and at best that's only £500 million, coupled with converting the carrier during build which would hardly double it.
Nope the real reason is most likely the knock on effect of the F-35C failing its arrestor trials and the likelihood that the 'Fix' just won't bring it to acceptable standards, coupled with the USN delaying its aircraft putting the in-service in strength on a CVF back to the later half of the next decade.
The other aspect is that switching back will allow both carriers to serve and avoid the government from getting bigger egg on their face by having the PoW favoured over the Queen Elizabeth, not something you can do in a diamond jubilee year.
However the F-35B is still far from ready, despite the spin from LM & the USMC to get it off probation many of the issues have not been Fixed, but rather are in progress or testing before they can be classified as such. There is a long way to go yet to expand its flight envelope, continue testing its structure, reliability and software, judge its performance and accept its over inflated price. Its still a very costly risk and should it fail we'll be well and truly shafted without a viable STOVL alternative.
Personally i think they would be wiser dropping the F-35C for JCA and switch to Super Hornet leaving a limited involvement in the F-35C as a long term replacement for the RAF Tornado's in the next decade as at last they would be carrier capable and would fulfill the long term Carrier Strike role, whilst Superbugs can act as a permanent carrier airgroup to provide CAP, Sea Strike and Tanking duties.

 

[Graeme65]

It has been so widely briefed to the press that we can be pretty confident that it is true- astonishing- but true. Its a high risk and rather desperate gamble to keep cost down in the next few years. Betting the whole programme on one aircraft, with a somewhat chequered development history, making it into service.
It will compromise the carrier programme for the future as it effectively rules out all other fixed wing aircraft, which makes them rather vulnerable to anyone who might be able to shoot back. Without a French or US carrier nearby they will be dependant on land based E3 to provide low level radar coverage. A helicopter based system does not push the radar horizon out to a comfortable range when you consider the reach of modern ASMs. It also, likely as not, rules out deployment of a UK naval UCAV in the future as am sure we can al agree that the proposed collaborative programme with France will not be STOVL.

A Hornet or Rafale buy would make a lot of sense and be financially quite sensible but can't see it happening as this is an RAF purchase and they want a stealth plane not something broadly comparable to the Typhoon. Also money saved after 2015 is of no benefit to the current shower in charge.

All in all it seems like a bad day for any return to meaningful UK naval aviation.
By the way am not at all sure how STOVL versus CATOBAR can have much impact on sortie generation. When you consider how much time it takes to service, fuel and arm an aircraft, fly the sortie and then re-service the aircraft for a future flight, the time taken up by the take off and landing bit it pretty irrelevant over all. Sortie generation will be a function of serviceable available aircraft and how many pilots you have in a fit state to fly. In fact the B variant, being more complex, will likely spent more time in the hangar and therefore mean fewer serviceable aircraft per units embarked.

 

[SteveO]

If they fix all the problems and as long as it can carry around 2x Paveway IV, a few Brimstone missiles and an AMRAAM further than the Harrier the F-35B will be fine for UK carrier operations.

F-35B will be a very pilot friendly aircraft to operate from carriers in STOVL mode and I can't see the need for any special training being required. Unlike the F-35C, which must require a trip to the USA and a few goes in a T-45 Goshawk.

Future fast jet UCAV operations on UK carriers will be in the distant future. Cats and wires can be fitted then.

The F-35C still isn't the right aircraft for the RAF, it just requires slightly less tanker support that they probably couldn't provide to the level required anyway.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It is amusing how you always resort to insults when your arguments are systematically demolished, it is especially amusing that that you are angered by my requests for evidence and facts rather than fabrications and opinions.

You haven’t systematically demolished anything except the last shreds of your reputation. All you have done is insist every argument I’ve made, every opinion and even every fact is a fabrication. You get the insults because that’s what your behaviour deserves.

Like your insistence that the “Harrier Carrier” (their name not mine) USS Nassau was an amphibious ship not a carrier in Desert Storm and the varying proximities to the enemy (Iraq, remember them?) is irrelevant because of the geography of the Persian Gulf. Its total nonsense.

And the final ignominy you have inflicted upon the people of this board is insisting I replace my opinion and all the reasoning I have provided to explain it and support it with some kind of quote from a Government official. What an interesting way to replace public discourse and debate.

 

[sferrin]

Like your insistence that the “Harrier Carrier” (there name not mine) USS Nassau was an amphibious ship not a carrier in Desert Storm and the varying proximities to the enemy (Iraq, remember them?) is irrelevant because of the geography of the Persian Gulf. Its total nonsense.

That's not unusual. Sweetman also insists that amphibious assault ships aren't carriers, despite the fact they have larger flight decks and operate more aircraft than just about anybody else's "aircraft carriers". If he (and others) were to admit that infact they are carriers as well, well then, they'd have a more difficult time explaining why cancelling the F-35B isn't such a dumb idea. (Don't ask me, that's the "logic" they use.)

 

[JFC Fuller]

You haven’t systematically demolished anything except the last shreds of your reputation. All you have done is insist every argument I’ve made, every opinion and even every fact is a fabrication. You get the insults because that’s what your behaviour deserves.

Quite clearly I have, which is why you have repeatedly refused to defend your starting assertion, and multiple others. I have only called your assertions fabrications because you have shown no actual evidence that they are based in fact.

Like your insistence that the “Harrier Carrier” (there name not mine) USS Nassau was an amphibious ship not a carrier in Desert Storm and the varying proximities to the enemy (Iraq, remember them?) is irrelevant because of the geography of the Persian Gulf. Its total nonsense.

I know, crazy, calling an amphibious assault ship that was carrying a Marine unit, was the flagship of an amphibious task force, and operated as part of the allied diversionary build up (a feinted amphibious assault) amphibious, I must be insane. But wait, here is a crazy idea, perhaps it was both an amphibious ship and a carrier? Kind of like an LHA perhaps? It is certainly not irrelevant, there was serious concern about the Iraqi counter-surface threat, a threat that was demonstrated to exist on several occasions, and this held the carriers further back in the Gulf. It has nothing to do with any particular weakness of CTOL carriers in confined waterways as is demonstrated by current deployments in the Gulf and USN exercises since the 1980s in the Aleutians and Norwegian Fjords.

And the final ignominy you have inflicted upon the people of this board is insisting I replace my opinion and all the reasoning I have provided to explain it and support it with some kind of quote from a Government official. What an interesting way to replace public discourse and debate.

The only "reasoning" you have provided is a collection of things that you imagined. I hate to break it to you, but asking someone to justify an apparently inaccurate assertion is not an "ignominy". My request is a simple one, it is that you provide a single piece of evidence to justify this assertion:

The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C.

So yet again, I ask you to provide a single example of this argument being made.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's not unusual. Sweetman also insists that amphibious assault ships aren't carriers, despite the fact they have larger flight decks and operate more aircraft than just about anybody else's "aircraft carriers". If he (and others) were to admit that infact they are carriers as well, well then, they'd have a more difficult time explaining why cancelling the F-35B is such a dumb idea. (Don't ask me, that's the "logic" they use.)

The US has evolved their use of LHA/LHD ships over the past 30 odd years as they learn lessons from the incorporation of STOVL aircraft into the MEU. The original LHA despite having a big flat deck was very deficient in a range of facilities to support sustained aircraft operations. Features that were built into the Wasp class LHDs (and even more so the America class LHA) so they could be more effective in flying STOVL fighters. The importance of STOVL fighters in these ESGs has been significantly increasing since the first AV-8As went to sea.



USS Nassau in ODS operated without a MEU landing team on board and just carried a full squadron of Harriers (20) and a light helo squadron (7 UH-1, 3 AH-1) and a PCU (primary care unit) for receiving mass casualties. Because fast jet flight operations were as little as a quarter of every hour thanks to the ease of launching and recovering STOVL jets she could stay close to the threat shore (because she didn’t have to sail race tracks) and provide timely CAS and BAI as well as CASEVAC (which was never needed).

 

[JFC Fuller]

The US has evolved their use of LHA/LHD ships over the past 30 odd years as they learn lessons from the incorporation of STOVL aircraft into the MEU. The original LHA despite having a big flat deck was very deficient in a range of facilities to support sustained aircraft operations. Features that were built into the Wasp class LHDs (and even more so the America class LHA) so they could be more effective in flying STOVL fighters. The importance of STOVL fighters in these ESGs has been significantly increasing since the first AV-8As went to sea.

USS Nassau in ODS operated without a MEU landing team on board and just carried a full squadron of Harriers (20) and a light helo squadron (7 UH-1, 3 AH-1) and a PCU (primary care unit) for receiving mass casualties. Because fast jet flight operations were as little as a quarter of every hour thanks to the ease of launching and recovering STOVL jets she could stay close to the threat shore (because she didn’t have to sail race tracks) and provide timely CAS and BAI as well as CASEVAC (which was never needed).

Does not change the fact that she was an amphibious assault ship carrying a marine unit and acting as the flagship of an amphibious task force undertaking a feint amphibious assault. The ship was close to the threat shore because the decision had been taken to risk her that close to the shore (which had to happen to make the feint plausible), nothing to do with sailing race tracks. It was easy to keep flight ops to short periods of time because of the low sortie rate (compared to the strike carriers) not because of the STOVL element (perhaps we could know how many aircraft were involved when Nassau kept air operations to less than a quarter of every hour and how long those aircraft were away from the ship?). STOVL aircraft still need to be secured, fuelled, armed, undergo maintenance etc in between flights and the difference between launch and recovery times is minimal, as a perfect example, Charles de Gaulle is said to be able to mass land 20 aircraft in 12 minutes and launch one every 30 seconds (and its displacement is quite close to that of Nassau).

In addition you have still not provided any supporting evidence for this assertion:

The only 'argument' for the F-35C was that it made it politically easier for the HM Govt. to abolish the RN’s carrier capability from now to then because they could argue that Joint Force Harrier wouldn’t be contiguous with the F-35C.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Sorry to interrupt ( ) but an interesting article on the subject of this thread is here:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/forward-to-plan-b/

"Depending on your view point you might see the Short Take off and Vertical Landing capability of the F35B to be operationally useful or a gimmick but it is really not the issue, it’s a pros and cons type situation with no right or wrong answer, there are implications though.

Regardless of the performance benefits, what were these extra costs and risks associated with going back to having ‘proper carriers’

Deck Crew; estimates vary but a solid assumption is that conventional carrier operations need more deck crew that STOVL; shore accommodation, welfare, pensions, pay and all the other capitation costs we know about. Some of these can be mitigated with sharing arrangements but fundamentally, it is an additional cost.

Flight Crew; although synthetic environments and the F35’s flight control systems hold a great deal of promise, the assumption must be that maintaining carrier qualifications will require more aircraft, more aircrew and more time. This drives up cost or reduces availability. Where that relationship settles is open for discussion but the basic assumption should be we will need more time/crew or accept less mission availability and reduce the ability to rapidly surge in a crisis.

Catapults and Arrestor Gear; no sensible option exists other than the US EMAL’s and associated recovery equipment which is an additional capital cost and significant through life cost. Certainly cheaper than steam but still a considerable extra cost although the risk of it failing to deliver seems remote.

Doubts on the second carrier; by putting additional costs and delay into the programme something had to give and that something was the second carrier. Operating one carrier with F35C’s might provide a performance uplift over F35B’s but if our loan carrier is in refit or has an accident it doesn’t matter what performance advantage there is. Relying on the French might seem a reasonable option if one’s head is firmly in the sand but does anyone else think will see Rafale’s providing cover for a UK only operation?

Deck Handling and the CEPP; carrier strike has morphed into Carrier Enabled Power Projection (who thinks these up by the way, is there a training course one attends?) which is a blend of carrier borne fast jets, helicopters and in the future UAV’s, supported by other capabilities and force elements. The Royal Navy openly admit that the move to conventional aircraft handling will complicate matters in this regard, noting in evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee that no other maritime force will be doing this and that the challenges are significant. With STOVL aircraft the deck movement challenges are much fewer and we have a deep well of experience from which to draw.

Recovery Refuelling; if we operate the CTOL F35C we need a means of safely providing emergency recovery refuelling but given that no customer exists for the F35C except the USN and they have plenty of other options we would have to fund that ourselves. This would not be an insurmountable problem but at what cost?

Interoperability; the SDSR made great play of interoperability but this only means the US and French maritime forces, the F35B allows us to work with the USMC, Italian and Spanish forces, maybe Australians in the future, in addition to the US and French Navies, plus a number of other prospective F35B buyers and at the very least we would be able to carry out an emergency recovery of an F35B on almost any vessel in the fleet.

I would also ask whether the performance difference between the F35C and F35B is in a REALISTIC operational context are really that significant."

 

[JFC Fuller]

Thanks for the post Harrier,

Think Defence produces some very thought provoking pieces and his content has improved dramatically since he started. He is also a tenacious researcher and often drags out some little known details. I would also recommend this gentleman's, Gabriele's, Blog:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/

And here is his JCA/UK F-35 article:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/p/jca-f35c.html

And QE Class:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/p/future-force-2020-carrier-vessel-future.html

 

[SteveO]

Sorry to interrupt ( ) but an interesting article on the subject of this thread is here:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/forward-to-plan-b/

Good article, pretty much covers this whole mess, it's got my vote of approval.

 

[Thorvic]

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=493978&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20

The plot thickens, perhaps could be smoke, but if valid could have very interesting repercussions :-\

 

[Abraham Gubler]

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=493978&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20

The plot thickens, perhaps could be smoke, but if valid could have very interesting repercussions :-\

No one else in the world other than the free London newspaper is saying the Marines will only buy 65 F-35Bs...

 

[GTX]

In fact if anything, the discussion within the program is that the F-35B numbers will be increased. It seems to be mostly those of the anti-JSF crowd who are raising such rubbish.

 

[Thorvic]

Looks like it may nof be guff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164155/Aircraft-carrier-costs-will-be-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html
We'll have to see what happens on Monday as thats when PR12 of the MOD budget is supposed to be discussed, if they confirm the switch then its guff, if not then the UK Govt has some serious work to do this Easter for DC to decide upon.
It also makes that US/UK Carrier Cooperation agreement rather interesting as it sounds like it could well be in line with the Rivet Joint Airseeker deal in terms of cooperation and intergration. ???

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Looks like it may nof be guff

It depends on what guff you are referring to. There is nothing in that article and certainly nothing from the US Navy supporting F-35B cancellation or major truncation. Just more conjecture from a “source”.

Apart form the US Navy trying to refute the cost estimates of the UK MoD the major thing is confirmation that the US wants to base a squadron with independent C2 onto the UK’s carriers. But this is a lot less to do with F-35B vs F-35C and more to do with the likelihood of there being a lot of free real estate on these ships thanks to the UK’s force cuts.

The US squadron could be a USMC F-35B unit just as well as a USN F-35C unit. Well it would be a lot easier to cycle a USMC squadron onboard because the USN is fully committed to supporting their own carrier deployments.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Apart form the US Navy trying to refute the cost estimates of the UK MoD the major thing is confirmation that the US wants to base a squadron with independent C2 onto the UK’s carriers. But this is a lot less to do with F-35B vs F-35C and more to do with the likelihood of there being a lot of free real estate on these ships thanks to the UK’s force cuts.

It is all about F-35B vs F-35C, no catapults and wires means no USN Strike Fighters on UK Carriers irrespective of real estate- it is exactly the same issue with the French with which there is the planned integrated carrier strike group (which you persistently ignored previously).

The US squadron could be a USMC F-35B unit just as well as a USN F-35C unit. Well it would be a lot easier to cycle a USMC squadron onboard because the USN is fully committed to supporting their own carrier deployments.

Why just a USN F-35C unit? Why not a USN Super hornet unit? or a USMC F-35C unit? The US Navy is planning for a force of 35 CTOL strike fighter squadrons supplemented by 5 USMC F-35C squadrons. The USMC will operate 19 squadrons of F-35B (under 2011 plans) to replace its tactical squadrons. However, the USMC has just as many commitments with its F-35B fleet as the USN does with its Strike fighter fleet, with the need to provide units to the MEU's and provide for land based expeditionary needs, notably Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni (one squadron) which if anything will become more important with the "pivot". The key takeaway though is that of the Squadrons capable of carrier based operations in the US nearly 70% will be CTOL rather than STOVL suggesting an allied CTOL carrier would be more useful. Not to mention the fact that USMC F-35Bs could still operate from a CTOL equipped QE class meaning 100% of US carrier capable squadrons could use the ship as a opposed to just over 30%, as well as France's 3 planned Rafale M Flotilles.

 

[Hood]

It seems to me to be another case of political ping-pong. Surely by now some kind of firm decision should have been made? To keep changing their mind over whether to go for the B or C is going to keep rising costs? Doubtless the CVF plans will need altering again, probably from scratch rather than just using the last saved CAD files of the V/STOL design, and more redesign work will then be carried out. Meanwhile as time drags on the scope and ability to keep changing the design of the ship will diminish without costing even more money. I wish the government would just make a long-term policy and stick to it. Right now it seems like the personal opinions and preferences of the Defence Ministers are driving things. What if a new Minister comes into the job in a future reshuffle, or at the next election? We can't keep changing our minds every five minutes.

Also the French question is open to change. At the moment relations are cosy and military co-operation seems to be increasing. The French Presidential Election could change all that if attitudes between the two nations alter. Yes, it Anglo-French co-operation might have worked off Libya had we had a carrier then but how many times has it happened in the past where Anglo-French naval forces have worked together? Surely though if the USN is committed to the F-35C (and of course the Super Hornet/Growler) then would CATOBAR be the best option if they want to operate from an RN carrier? Of course the B can land on any carrier deck, but for two-way co-operation cats and traps seem the only logical answer. Of course from an RAF point of view they would want all the F-35 fleet to be the same to avoid complicating servicing requirements and spares holdings etc.

Perhaps part of the problem is the F-35 programme itself, perhaps Whitehall fears backing the wrong horse? If the B gets cancelled this eyar or next, or the year after then its going to be egg on a lot of faces as they re-trace steps to put catapults and arrestor gear back into the ship when its much closer to completion, or deciding to finish the second hul instead. To some extent CVF is hostage to American military and funding planning, something perhaps that hasn't been acknowledged in Whitehall.

 

[Graeme65]

Its not just current aircraft and those, hopefully, close to entering service, its future projects too. The USN will want a new utility platform to replace the Greyhound and perhaps to form the basis for future tanker, AEW and sigint/intel aircraft. Even if the UK is only a 5% or 10% contributor, this will be money the USN won't have to find and political capital against cancellation too. Then there is possibe naval UCAV cooperation with the USN or the French. These carriers are supposed to be around for 50 years. Being out of step with our principle allies would be bad news for both us and them for decades.

 

[zen]

I think some people need to treat the current media hubbub with a degree of caution.


To my knowledge there has been no change in the current position of completing HMS Prince of Wales as a CATOBAR CV.
Contracts signed, monies paid or committed and work ongoing. Oh and of course peoples training regimes changed. The idea this is all going to be jacked in now would require quite a justification. Is the F35-C that certain of major cost escalation?