CVF Construction

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 507


Funny, after reading the Qinetiq stuff on the Bedford gear, I have no issues with SRL whatsoever for F-35B. I had no issues with it for Harrier as I must have seen it done 100 times in crosswinds, slick surface and almost every weather condition at Cottesmore over the years. I dont recall a single one as much as slipping off onto the grass!.

Thus the RAF STOVL bias which does put your point of of view into perspective.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

I would also add at Cottesmore if the runway gets fouled there are plenty of diversion airfields or even the grass by the runway push come to shove.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 956

Thus the RAF STOVL bias which does put your point of of view into perspective.

Isn't Jonesy ex-RN? I thought he was some sort of missile tech?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Swerve,

The way I see it we have two options:

a) stay with CATOBAR. Spend initially £900mn outfitting PoW. See QE built and undertake first of class sea trials then go into extended readiness by 2016. Britains biggest ever white elephant....hailed as such in full colour every week in the Guardian etc. A visible indication of the waste on defence and one for which we'll all become very familiar with the number of hospitals and schools that could have been built with the same spend.

PoW, if it isnt cancelled on the slips in response to the hand-wringing public outcry, starts its operational trials from scratch as we, despite QE's presence, haven't been able to start working up deck procedures or operations. Depending on the success of the tailhook fix and the 35C production schedule we have a basic capability declared in, what, 2022 at the earliest?. So 6 years...with two huge carriers....and no operational capability. This is the way we are going to secure the funding for another £900mn for the QE's cats is it?. More likely the hull is sold cheap to the French for their CdeG replacement after a few years!.

b) Revert to STOVL. Pay BAE their millions for their CATOBAR design work and keep the results on file to save spend in future should we have to go CATOBAR. QE goes into sea trials, completes, then uses the few F-35B's delivered to start working up operational procedures. The only thing needing to happen from that point forward being the delivery of airframes for full operational capability. Duty/readiness cycles start with PoW's commissioning.

For my money the type of aircraft is very important. One makes operations hard and costs upfront and one makes operations easy and doesnt.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Isn't Jonesy ex-RN? I thought he was some sort of missile tech?

Yup....obviously I'm a turncoat traitor ;)

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

Indeed CATOBAR leads to safer, easier and over the long term cheaper operations then the highly compromised F35B. Upfront costs are yes greater with CATOBAR but as far as I am concerned it is worth it vs the risks of STOVL. SRVL is a compromised concept and there are just too many risks involved for safe operations. F35B has virtually no bring back without tanker help and even then if something goes wrong the entire strike package will have to dump their very expensive munitions. As for initial operating capability with F35C in 2022...so what? That is pretty much what they are saying for F-35B as well! Full operational capability of either type isn't going to be until at least 2030! The treasury isn't going to authorise full procurement until the Tornado draw down. We have to be realistic, the treasury and MOD have made it VERY clear that they can't afford to run both carriers at the same time. If that is the case we might as well go down the better and less risky CATOBAR route and hope funding for a QE conversion is available in the 2025 SSDR if not we are in the same boat as France and we have a big LPH. Even with one carrier France showed significant capability over the last decade, the CdG operations over Libya were stunning in comparison to what the UK could offer.

As for QE going into storage as a white elephant...that accusation is going to be in every newspaper regardless of what happens (is already happening now). QE either is used as a mega replacement for Ocean or gets converted mid 2020's which is for me a good idea as it makes good use of the investment into upgrading Rosyth.

The procurement process is broken going back on SSDR now only compounds that. UK defence posture should not be decided by ill-informed writing in newspapers that often have an agenda and an axe to grind!

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Jonesy:

of course the type of aircraft is important, but I'm afraid you've completely missed the point.

Military procurement in this country is a mess. It's disastrously bad. One of the worst things about it is the constant changing of direction. We spend billions on equipment that we don't buy, or do buy but don't put into service, as a result of those changes of direction. Fixing that problem is more important than any single equipment procurement decision, regardless of how big. We must, absolutely must, stop the chopping and changing. Calling a halt to it with the carrier procurement would set a precedent. Executing another u-turn would be a signal that the next government, or next minister, can carry on merrily throwing away our money with reversals of procurement policy, leading to far more wasted spending than the cost of fitting catapults to one or even two carriers.

If we cancel the catapults now, I fear it'll greatly increase the chances of cancelling the whole thing. That's what you risk with another reversal. You're saying it's OK to throw away money already spent, that long-term consequences really don't matter, as long as the current politician in charge can put his stamp on the budget.

It's a recipe for the current catastrophe to continue forever.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,533

Jonesy:

of course the type of aircraft is important, but I'm afraid you've completely missed the point.

Military procurement in this country is a mess. It's disastrously bad. One of the worst things about it is the constant changing of direction. We spend billions on equipment that we don't buy, or do buy but don't put into service, as a result of those changes of direction. Fixing that problem is more important than any single equipment procurement decision, regardless of how big. We must, absolutely must, stop the chopping and changing. Calling a halt to it with the carrier procurement would set a precedent. Executing another u-turn would be a signal that the next government, or next minister, can carry on merrily throwing away our money with reversals of procurement policy, leading to far more wasted spending than the cost of fitting catapults to one or even two carriers.

If we cancel the catapults now, I fear it'll greatly increase the chances of cancelling the whole thing. That's what you risk with another reversal. You're saying it's OK to throw away money already spent, that long-term consequences really don't matter, as long as the current politician in charge can put his stamp on the budget.

It's a recipe for the current catastrophe to continue forever.

Couldn't agree more.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

Its going to be interesting to see what actually happens.

I'm not sure the government are happy to swallow another delay to operations if the C needs a major rework, and I don't accept that the B is as bad as some would like to think.

The F35 is not a great tornado replacement and I don't think its relevant to link the end of tornado ops with the induction of the F35.

Having said that, its all a mess and a reversal would add to that I suppose.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Swerve,

The 'current' situation is not going to change until we abolish 4yr terms of office for the incumbent regime. Its too easy to blurt all the money away and leave a note for the next guy to take the seat saying 'bad luck all the moneys gone'. That will never change....at least it hasnt since the advent of industrial warfare!.

Sacrificing Carrier Strike in the noble quest to rid ourselves of such partisan party political fart-arsing is simply ludicrous. At very worst reverting to STOVL pushes back the change to CATOBAR until we absolutely need it. That is for a situation where STOVL really has failed...which it demonstrably hasn't at the moment....or when we NEED the payload/range and the country is willing to pay for full time Fleet Air Arm squadrons to deploy it. Neither of these situations exist now.

At best, if F-35B confounds the masses and actually works, STOVL offers the Royal Navy the chance to operate Carrier Strike with someone else footing a goodly share of the bill. The RN dont have to pay for the basing, dont have to pay for shore logistics, dont have to pay all the training costs and dont have to pay for a good number of aircraft.

This, in turn, means we CAN pay for the Type 26's, CAN pay for the new SSBN's etc, etc. It means we get the carriers and a foot in the door of naval aviation again.

It means that, down the line, if we face a developed threat in blue water and that new threat justifies Hawkeye, F-35C and CATOBAR UCAV's then commensurate expenditure can be found. Having the ships adaptable we get the extra systems fitted and, most importantly, get the FAA fully reconstituted to deploy permanent multi-squadron airgroups. Seriously guys there just is no point in CATOBAR until we get that commitment to permanent squadrons...which deals the RAF out of the game and throws the whole jointness/basing/logistics thing right out of the window.

Fed,

Sorry pal but you are way off here:

Indeed CATOBAR leads to safer, easier and over the long term cheaper operations then the highly compromised F35B

STOVL is far safer operationally when compared to another single engined fastjet type. In maintenance terms current gen Harriers are far more efficient in maintenance than CATOBAR types. Stats will say otherwise but I've not seen one that includes the time and effort of the matelots keeping steam cats and arresting gear shiny and squared away in the figures....which they should if its a like-like comparison.

SRVL is a compromised concept and there are just too many risks involved for safe operations. F35B has virtually no bring back without tanker help and even then if something goes wrong the entire strike package will have to dump their very expensive munitions.

Once again SRL is the way Harriers land on airbases now....very few skid off the runway ever because its an inherently controlled landing.

http://www.qinetiq.com/news/pressreleases/Pages/qinetiq-completes-trials-using-vaac.aspx

The article above shows that far from SRL being risky its only been considered difficult in conditions of significant deck motion...little different to CATOBAR...and a solution to the SRL issue has been identified. You have to ask yourself whether a CATOBAR pilot would be comfortable approaching for an arrested landing, in heavy seas, with a heavy bombload still on his airframe. You rather suspect not!. The 240 SRL approaches indicated seems to suggest that the STOVL pilot may have a good fighting change at bringing his ordnance back....and that its going to be a fairly mundane technique if the conditions are more benign.

I'm not sure where the tanker element comes in?. STOVL recovery fuel margins can obviously lower than for CATOBAR. Its very hard to bolter when your approach is only about 30knts over ships rate of advance.

We have to be realistic, the treasury and MOD have made it VERY clear that they can't afford to run both carriers at the same time

They will nearly never operate both at the same time anyway mate. The concept is duty carrier and readiness/refit carrier in rotating cycles. One carrier was stated as offering 220 days at sea coverage. If the next Libya happens on day 230 thats going to be an issue for our F-35C's. They will have far superior payload and range than their STOVL counterparts but will, unforunately, not be displaying these superior qualities as they will have no ship to launch from. Unless there is, as the RAF always claim, friendly local base-in in which case why did we build that carrier again!?.

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 226

Jonesy:

of course the type of aircraft is important, but I'm afraid you've completely missed the point.

Military procurement in this country is a mess. It's disastrously bad. One of the worst things about it is the constant changing of direction. We spend billions on equipment that we don't buy, or do buy but don't put into service, as a result of those changes of direction. Fixing that problem is more important than any single equipment procurement decision, regardless of how big. We must, absolutely must, stop the chopping and changing. Calling a halt to it with the carrier procurement would set a precedent. Executing another u-turn would be a signal that the next government, or next minister, can carry on merrily throwing away our money with reversals of procurement policy, leading to far more wasted spending than the cost of fitting catapults to one or even two carriers.

If we cancel the catapults now, I fear it'll greatly increase the chances of cancelling the whole thing. That's what you risk with another reversal. You're saying it's OK to throw away money already spent, that long-term consequences really don't matter, as long as the current politician in charge can put his stamp on the budget.

It's a recipe for the current catastrophe to continue forever.

Completely agree!!

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

I don't think I am off Jonesy.

We are not talking about Harriers landing on a land base, we are talking about F35B and carriers.

We have ACTUAL TEST PILOTS involved with the program who say that F35B will have virtually no bring back and an awful payload as it is. We have ACTUAL TEST PILOTS involved with the program who say that the fuel state will be dangerously marginal on return back to the carrier. We have ACTUAL TEST PILOTS involved with the program who say SRVL is a compromised concept that has little to no safety margin. Again we are talking about F35B not Harrier! F35B which has significant weight issues and doesn't meet the performance requirements laid out for JCA as it stands. As for tanking it was well reported a few years back that the MOD were funding studies into buddy tanking with B due to its marginal fuel state on return back to carrier.

Going on that I can only conclude that CATOBAR is safer with the added plus of having two alternatives if C does not work out.

Sorry to hit you over the head with this Jonesy but I think you are looking upon F35, STOVL and SRVL with Harrier tinted spectacles. Also I think you are being slightly naive in thinking that a decision to revert to STOVL is still reversible to CATOBAR. Every year those ships are in service makes that change less likely. Actually it makes early retirement more likely (lets say after twenty years) as I doubt they will convert to CATOBAR and I am certain there will not be a future STOVL fighter to replace F35B. In effect if we go for B we are trapped in that decision.

Another thing any money saved not installing CATOBAR gear is NOT going to go to future SSBN or Type 26...that just isn't how the treasury works. Money not spent stays with the treasury.

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 226

Not too sure why the RN needs SSBNs.........I would think that a combination of RAF and (future) RN aircraft (a new gravity bomb and perhaps a 'nuke' warhead on StormShadow) could maintain a pretty reasonable deterent.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983


I'm not sure the government are happy to swallow another delay to operations if the C needs a major rework, and I don't accept that the B is as bad as some would like to think.
The tail hook is a small engineering (non)-issue.
The issue with acceleration is a big issue that call for a major rework OTOH,
but the B won't do better,
it is already indicated that any performance issue is going to be "fixed" -by lowering the demands ! :rolleyes:
Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff,
told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Tuesday that
reducing the combat radius of the F-35A by five miles is more cost-effective than
modifying the fighter to meet performance goals set a decade ago.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/03/airforce-defense-f35-radius-web-030612w/

The F35 is not a great tornado replacement and I don't think its relevant to link the end of tornado ops with the induction of the F35.

Well the F-35C is by far closer to Tornado than F-35B in this regard, (range)
and a true replacement that even add range (UCAV) is going to have to be launched by a catapult from a carrier.

My issue with STOVL Carrier is not so much B vs C,
but the lack of AWAC's for now,
and even more importantly lack of growth potential post 2030, when stand-off surveillance & strike WILL matter on a defended area

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Fed

We also have ACTUAL test pilots, of the F-35B's, saying you can VL qual in a real F-35B in half a day!. We have Qinetiq saying that SRL is tested and eminently do-able...and in fact tested on smaller decks than CVF would have with lower powered jets!. We have Qinetiq saying that an SRL F-35B can brake stop, loaded, in 400ft of deck meaning we have hundreds of feet of margin left on the deck.

You cant have 'marginal fuel states on return to a carrier' with STOVL. Didnt Ward state that he tore strips of any man that returned to the ship with more than 500lbs left in the tanks in 82 as they werent trying hard enough in his opinion?. You only NEED significant reserves and recovery tankers with STOBAR and CATOBAR to allow for bolters or the attempt to pass enough gas for a diversion field. How do you bolter on a vertical landing or a 30knt overtake approach?. I've heard of cocked up VL sideslip approaches that miss the deck short and one incident were the aircraft translated too far on a duskers and got into the 'dark side' to starboard of the island on a CVS...both pilot error. I've never heard of one managing to bolter though.

Whether money saved will stay in the Defence budget is debateable. One thing for certain though is if its spent its gone. We have more to spend money on than just the carriers. If we can get some of the Carrier Strike money to come from the RAF we stand a greater chance of getting the rest of the kit we need than if we are paying for Carrier Strike solely from the RN allocation. Simple as that.

How are we trapped into the B variant when the carrier was always being designed to handle CATOBAR and the detailed design work for catapult fitment is actually being done by BAE now?. The original plan was for STOVL with the ability to convert to CATOBAR if STOVL was finished after F-35B. Just because we bounce between the two now makes no difference to the whole design concept.

19K11

In short the answer is yes we do need to be looking at new SSBN's. To be a deterrent the nuclear explosive must be near-guaranteed to strike target. An interceptable deterrent isnt much of a deterrent is it?. Currently the only delivery system able to put a warhead on target, at range, with high confidence of success, regardless of defensive measure, is a ballistic re-entry vehicle from a submarine or land based launcher. Seeing land basing is out for us...were pretty much down to one option.

There is also the other point to note that, if we wish to retain sovereign nuclear submarine design and fabrication capability in country, we have to build subs. More SSNs would be nice...to stretch things out for the new SSBN but they dont appear forthcoming....and definitely wont be if we are messing around with catapults than for no other reason, at best, than a lack of belief in STOVL.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 519

Not too sure why the RN needs SSBNs.........I would think that a combination of RAF and (future) RN aircraft (a new gravity bomb and perhaps a 'nuke' warhead on StormShadow) could maintain a pretty reasonable deterent.

The RN doesn't 'need' SSBNs and never has, it is the British Government that needs a credible national deterrent, and this means a survivable second strike capability. The only truly survivable delivery system is SLBMs and SSBNs, and they ae operated by the RN on the Government's behalf. The RN otherwise has no use or 'need' for SSBNs, they do not constitute a part of the fleet as such beyond for administrative purposes. Aircraft launched/dropped nuclear weapons were removed from the UK inventory some years ago (as a cost saving), but it should be remembered aircraft generally live on air bases which suffer from the inherent vulnerability of being unable to move or conceal their location from potential enemy, and remain susceptible to a pre emptive strike. Aircraft can always be intercepted on the way to the target, whereas there is no real defence against ICBMs.

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 902

The RN doesn't 'need' SSBNs and never has

Amen!
Gods know that their introduction did cost terrifying cuts to the rest of the fleet back when the SSBN story began.
It is the nation that needs SSBNs. For the Navy, they are more of a curse than they are a blessing.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

Again we are not talking about Harrier! We are not talking about land operations! There are some very worrying figures about marginal fuel states with F35B. The aircraft is dangerous with any kind of payload when it comes to landing. Hover landing by all accounts is not an option meaning SRVL with naff all fuel. ANY problems and they are stuffed.

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 87

Amen!
Gods know that their introduction did cost terrifying cuts to the rest of the fleet back when the SSBN story began.
It is the nation that needs SSBNs. For the Navy, they are more of a curse than they are a blessing.

It all would have been different if McNamara hadn't cancelled Skybolt :(

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

You know I'm not sure, I think Skybolt had Lemon written all over. Sub launched ICBM are by far the best deterrence.