A guest post from Martin
Like many Think Defence commentators (especially the awesome ones with a leaning towards the Dark Blue), I was very excited about the decision of the SDSR to move to a CATOBAR configuration of the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft carrier.
I had always loved the thought of the original CVF configuration with F35B. However, when the prospect of having a “proper carrier” operating F35 C or even just F18 arose, many people got very excited and I am no exception. This idea seemed justified in the light of rising costs and falling capabilities provided by the F35B, not to mention the looming prospect of cancelation. Rough estimates of £ 400 million being bandied about for carrier conversion seemed reasonable when we factored in the extra cost of purchasing F35B. The additional operating costs of CATOBAR seemed to be offset by the greater capabilities offered by larger jet with longer range and larger payload.
Best of all, if I am being totally honest, it allowed us to measure our trouser length against the world’s preeminent naval force for the first time in 40 years. That is not to say that trouser length is not important. When playing politics with the big boys, it is often necessary to have the same toys. Taking the French Navy as an example, it has nowhere near the combat power or capability of the Royal Navy but through a single CVN and everyone chalks them up as number two in the world.
However, as costs of conversion skyrocketed to £ 5 billion for conversion of both carriers, all the arguments went out the window. A STOVL configuration operating F35 B is the only logical choice. However, the more I began to think about it and read on TD from various commentators, the more I began not only to accept the decision on cost grounds, but slowly accept that it may be a superior concept to CATOBAR.
Contents
Looking at Trends
No one can argue that CATOBAR aircraft are superior to STOVL aircraft today. However, CATOBAR is far from a great military concept. Having a $100 million piece of metal flying at a $ 6 billion dollar piece of metal at a speed of over 166 miles an hour is far from an ideal situation. The effective CATOBAR operations are a massive testament to the Royal Navy of the 1950s and the US Navy subsequently.
Even with modern practice, CATOBAR has a number of issues such as higher fatigue rate of aircraft, larger crews required to handle flight operations, significantly larger ships required and not to forget a higher loss rate of pilot’s.
Even the biggest carrier junkie in the US Navy would have to admit that if there were no aircraft limitations from STOVL designs, the concept of being able to hover and land on deck is massively superior to a ”controlled crash”.
When designing aircraft carriers to last 50 years, future proofing is obviously vital. The QE class was supposedly designed to be easily convertible to CATOBAR configuration in the future, in case we began to operate UCAS systems requiring a conventional launch. Apparently the design is nowhere near flexible as we were lead to believe.
However, if we look at military trends over the past 50 years what makes us think CATOBAR will be the future?
If we look at the first generation of STOVL aircraft in the Harrier Mark 1, which was introduced in the late 1960s around the same time as the F4 Phantom flying off US Navy carriers, we can see the Harrier is massively inferior.
Harrier Mk1, F4 Phantom
Combat Radius 230 miles 422 miles
Speed 731 mph 1,472 mph
Radar none mechanically scanned
Armament 2,268 KG 8,840 Kg
Next, looking at a comparison between the second generations of STOVL aircraft introduced in the 1980’s with comparable CATOBAR aircraft we can see a relative improvement in STOVL. Looking at Harrier II AV8 B compared to the FA18 A/B. We can still see a clear advantage of FA18 but it is nowhere near the advantage F4 had over the original harrier.
Harrier II AV8 B, F18 A/B
Combat Radius 350 miles 460 miles
Speed 673mph 1190 mph
Radar Mechanically Scanned Mechanically Scanned
Weapons Capacity 5,988KG 6,215 KG
While we do not have any current exact performance figures for F35 B or C as they are still in testing, we have a good idea that F35 C offers a significantly better Combat Radius of 707 miles vs. 540 miles. The F35C can also return more undelivered stores to the carrier. The Systems and electronics of both aircraft are identical and having smaller wings allows the F35B to have slightly higher top speed and more maneuverability, although I believe the F35B is limited to 7G vs. 9G for the F35C. The F35 C can carry almost double the internal payload of the F35B when comparing 2,000lbs and 1,000lbs bombs. Weight is not really the major issue but rather the length of ordinance. C can carry 8 SDB as compared to B’s 6. We are looking at roughly a 25% increase in Payload for the C to the B when we take into account external stores. While I would still say the F35 C has the edge, it is merely marginal. The main benefit it has is range but the F35B’s combat radius cannot be ignored when it is in fact, superior to the previous generation of CATOBAR aircraft.
The point I am trying to make here is not that the F35B is better than the F35C. It’s still not, but the trend over the last 50 years has shown improvements in STOVL designs, far in excess of what has been achieved by their CATOBAR cousins. The performance differences are now relatively minimal. Given that it’s easier and safer to operate a STOVL design and more cost effective, this trend suggests that the future lies with STOVL and not CATOBAR. Other trends over the last 50 years include engines becoming more powerful, electronics lighter and more compact and weapons smaller and more accurate. All these trends favor STOVL.
Unmanned Combat Air Systems
There is no doubt that the longer-term future of fighters and strike aircraft lies in unmanned systems. However, when exactly that future arrives and what it look like, is open to debate. What we can say is that UAVs have been vital for the last 20 years. These vital UAVs are not jet powered, stealthy strike bombers but rather, slow flying propeller aircraft.
A lot of criticism is levied against the STOVL design of the QE Class and one example is without CATOBAR, we will not be able to operate UCAS’s systems. However, given that there is only one CATOBAR UCAS in the design phase at present- the X47, and that aircraft has yet to demonstrate its ability to actually land on a moving aircraft carrier, we can rest easy for a while that the world will not suddenly become dominated by Cylon raider’s flying off of aircraft carriers. It will be a massive engineering challenge to get X47 to work as part of a functional air group.
The engineering challenge of launching a slow flying propeller plane off of an aircraft carrier and recovering it was solved in 1917. These planes were launched from a converted coal ship with no catapult and a limited arrestor system. Compare the X47 and its capability with the myriad of smaller cheaper UAVs and UCAVs on the market today and tell me what offers the best capability. The Queen Elizabeth Class will present any UAV with a 270 m long runway moving forward at 25 knots into a head wind with a big ski jump at the end. I dare say there is not a UAV on the market today that cannot launch under those conditions with a little design modification. Recovery will be a little more difficult, but a slow flying plane with a low stall speed presented with a 270-meter runway moving forward should not find it difficult to land on deck. It may even be possible for the aircraft to stop without the use of arrestor gear simply using a drogue Para shoot.
There is no doubt in my mind that X47 is the most impressive UCAS under development today. However, what is more useful to a task group commander? A faster flying, stealthy vehicle able to carry one or two weapons internally with a range of 2000 miles and a loiter time of 10 hours? Or a MALE UAV like Mantis, able to stay in the air for 30 hours and carry almost any weapon or sensor you like. Arguably, if you are preparing to fight China in the Pacific you want the X47. For any other job I will choose the Sea Mantis.
Eventually, we will have to fly big fast stealthy unmanned systems off of our carrier. However, if we have already solved the problems for manned jets with the F35 B, why would we think this would be any different for unmanned jets? Stripping out the associated weight of a pilot likely makes a STOVL aircraft even better with improved fuel load and increased return weights.
Many argue that without a CATOBAR configuration, we will be left out when it becomes time to replace F35. However, there are only two nations in the world that operate CATOBAR capable jets whereas many more operate STOVL aircraft. We have been developing STOVL aircraft with the USMC since the 1960s. What make us think the USMC will not still be flying STOVL aircraft beyond F35?
What are we actually going to do with the JCA?
If we look at the historical differences in naval aviation between the US and the UK, we can also see some interesting precedents.
During the early part of World War 2, the US and UK had roughly similar sized carrier fleets with similar sized vessels. The major difference was in design of those vessels. The Royal Navy knew it would have to fight closer to shore, in range of land-based aircraft. Consequently, it built its ships with armored decks. This cut the air group in half and meant usage of smaller planes with less range.
The US Navy knew on the other hand it would be fighting far out to sea in the Pacific against other carriers. Therefore, it built wooden deck vessels that can operate much larger groups of aircraft, which can overpower other carriers with smaller air groups. The US navy also needed aircraft with longer range to conduct operations in the Pacific.
The F35 C has a massive combat radius of over 700 miles, even more than its land based counterpart. The US feels that it needs that range not for longer loitering time over the battlefield, but to give the navy the ability to attack targets well in land or allow carriers to operate against Chinese forces from a relatively safe distance out in the distant ocean.
Our needs are very different.
The map above shows the F35c 990 km combat radius based on any of the places we have bombed in the last 20 years or are likely to bomb in the next 10. The main argument behind carrier air power is that it can get in closer than land based aircraft and needs less in the way of refueling. With fighter aircraft, you can never have enough range. However, 990km seems to be overdoing it. In each of these scenarios, there are NATO and allied airfields well within the F35C combat radius. I have no desire to get involved in US – China geopolitics in the Pacific. I do not see a need to spend a fortune designing our carriers and aircraft to fight in an environment that I don’t want to fight in and likely never will.
The F35 C offers much greater payload and bring back weight. This cannot be denied as the F35C has the ability to carry two 2000lbs JDAMS internally vs. F35B, which can only carry two 1,000lbs internally. However, in operational terms do we see the need for 2,000lbs bombs? As weapons become more accurate and collateral damage becomes less and less acceptable, we have seen a clear move away from large dumb bombs to smaller more accurate weapons. The best weapon in our armoury today seems to be Paveway IV at 500 lbs. When will we ever need the ability to drop four of these at one time? Moving forward, weapons like the US Small diameter bomb are even smaller. There is certainly a need for larger bombs, but these are becoming fewer all the time and increasingly niche. Factor in weapons like Storm shadow for tackling deep buried targets and we can reasonably say the F35B is going to be able to cope with almost any tactical situation F35C can.
Many are concerned about the reduced bring back weight of the STOVL version. This is a valid concern and it’s not like the C version’s bring back is amazing either. If a F35 takes off with a Storm shadow for instance, its primary reason will be to strike a static high value target such as a runway, command post or air defence site, why would it be bringing the missile back? Maybe the war was declared over and there was a recall order. Awesome no war, who cares about dropping a million dollar missile in the water? The aircraft may get into trouble and have to return to the aircraft carrier for repair, are we really going to suggest that if an F35C was in trouble and making an emergency landing on our nice new carrier that the pilot would not first drop his ordinance?
Having more bring back weight is obviously better. However it’s a marginal difference, which with a little operational planning can be overcome.
We should also not forget that trends in STOVL aircraft tend to see engine thrust improve over time. There are rumors that Pratt & Whitney is working on a more powerful version of the F135 in line with the quoted performance of the F136, offering nearly 20% more thrust. As the F35B is dependent on engine thrust for returning weight for every pound of thrust we add, we can add a pound of returning stores. As the F35C is dependent on aerodynamic lift for returning stores, it is limited from day one by its landing speed. Given that its landing speed is already similar to the cruising speed of a TGV it would seem unwise to try to increase it.
AEW, AAR and COD
One of the main reasons why I wanted a “proper carrier” is to enable us to operate the E2 Hawkeye. Airborne Early Warning is a vital capability that the UK did without in 1982, and paid a massive price for. We are obviously inclined to focus on this area. There is arguably no better aircraft for AEW than the E2D. Hence, should there be any combat over the Pacific, far away from air bases, it would be the first aircraft chosen to be in my inventory.
However, AEW is not the same as AWACS. Operations like Libya and Kosovo require a lot of controllers coordinating aircraft flying from a number of different places. Arguably, E3 is much better than E2D at doing this and I have no doubt that E3 once upgraded, will be superior to E2D. Looking back at our map, there has been no conflict we have fought in where we would have used E2’s instead of E3’s, bar one which shall remain nameless.
This is not to say that our carriers do not need AEW. Clearly 1982 showed us they do. However, if we ever go and fight someone 1982 style again on our own you can bet they will have a s**t air force and the capability of CROWSNEST and F35 will be more than able to deal with them. The reason I know this is because if they don’t have a s**t air force, we won’t be fighting them. If we are talking serious pier threat’s i.e. Russia or China, then it’s already gone thermonuclear and really the ability of Nelly and Dumbo to defend themselves from massed Sukhoi attacks will pale in comparison to the fact your house is gone and unless you have factor 2 million sunblock so are you.
On the very rare occasion that E3 cannot provide us with cover then CROWSNEST will provide adequate capability.
Conventional carriers have the ability to launch aircraft for AAR refueling. The US Navy uses the F18 in this role. However, it’s not a combat enhancing capability in the way that a Voyager tanker would be. It’s an austere capability to allow aircraft to circle or go around if they have problems landing. A STOVL carrier does not need such a thing. In terms of operational use in any area we have fought or are likely to fight in, the Voyager provides a massively superior capability.
For Carrier on board delivery, the US Navy uses the C2 Greyhound. This is a very useful aircraft to have. However, the V22 Osprey can actually carry a heavier load and is easily capable of providing COB anywhere we are likely to operate. Obviously we don’t have any V22s, but we don’t have any C2s either. Given the fact that it’s out of production and the USN needs to keep what it has got, we never were likely to get any. V22 provides a much more versatile capability than C2, offering us the ability to deliver Special Forces at great range. We could possibly even stick palletized radar on board for enhanced AEW or even put in a palletized central line refueling system to offer a far better AAR capability than F18 can provide. The point is, if we had a bit more cash we could buy V22 and operate them from our QE Class carriers.
Airborne Early Warning, AAR and COB cannot be seen as areas that a CATOBAR carrier has distinct advantages over a STOVL design when we look at actual operational usage.
STOVL designs do have some significant advantages over their CATOBAR cousins. STOVL aircraft can operate higher sortie rates. Figures quoted put the sortie rate for STOVL aircraft as much as 50% higher than CATOBAR aircraft.
Also, STOVL carriers offer much improved flexibility in terms of operating aircraft. Conventional carrier struggle to operate large amounts of helicopter’s and simultaneous flight operations for fixed and rotary wing aircraft are nearly impossible on a large scale.
STOVL carriers can operate in far worse sea conditions and aircraft operations are safer (as long as the lift fan works).
Whose trousers are really longer anyway?
When comparing trouser length, we have to be careful to compare like with like. The CVF concept is to operate three squadrons all equipped with F35Bs. If we cast our mind back to the heady days of SDR in 1998, the reason we choose 36 as the magic number was because this was the same as a standard Nimitz Air Group. While the Nimitz class is quoted as carrying up to 90 aircraft, in reality the US navy does not have this many planes. Operating 90 aircraft off a Nimitz is also difficult and many of the planes will have to be parked on deck. It’s not a good idea to leave $100 million stealth planes out in the open with sun and salt water spray.
Also, let us not forget that F35 C will not be replacing the entire US Navy fleet of strike aircraft. A United States Navy carrier air wing in the mid 2020’s is likely to consist of 24 FA 18 EF 12 F35c 4 F18 G and 4 Hawkeye E2D with possibly 4 X47’s. If fully funded to its intended level, then a Royal Navy Carrier Air wing of the mid 2020’s would consist of maybe 36 F35 B and 4 AEW Merlin.
If we assume that the F35 is superior to the F18 and that the capability of the AESA radar on the F35 negates much of the need for the F18G, then which force is superior? The US navy force certainly has the longer range but the Royal Navy group has the technological edge as well as the ability to generate up to 50% more in combat sorties. If we put an E3 and a Voyager tanker overhead flying from land bases, there is very little difference in the capability of one group vs. the other.
I know we will probably not buy enough F35Bs to operate 36 aircraft and will likely never need to do so anyway. However, in terms of combat power the CVF F35B STOVL concept is certainly viable and gives us in some ways more capability than the usual load of a US Navy Nimitz Class Carrier. There is certainly not the same type of gap that existed between an Invincible Class CVS and a Nimitz Class in the previous incarnation. Factoring in a battle group with two of the world’s best AAW destroyer’s, two of the best ASW frigates and quite possibly the world’s best SSN and the navy of the next decade never has to worry about the size of its inside seem.
There is no doubt that STOVL operations are cheaper. We specifically gave up CATOBAR operations because they were too expensive. We also realized that while aircraft carriers are great for gunboat diplomacy and policing the third world, they are little more than giant floating targets if we go up against a determined pier enemy armed with SSN’s and supersonic cruise missiles. Putting price aside, CATOBAR carriers still offer a greater capability than their STOVL rivals. However, the margin of that capability has become much smaller and in many ways irrelevant. Now that we have reverted back to STOVL, it is time to make the concept work to its maximum potential. The RN has always led the way in naval aviation, relying on innovation where budgets were lacking. If any navy can take the STOVL concept to the point it becomes superior to the CATOBAR, it’s ours and I hope over the next 50 years we do just that.
Hi Martin
I’m pleased to get the first comment, a really great and informative post!
I have always followed the same direction of thinking on this subject, but it’s great to hear some fleshed out detail on the various elements of the decision.
I totally agree with you! STOVL is slightly inferior to CATOBAR, but that doesn’t mean it won’t have a bright future ahead of it. Their are plenty of countries around the world that will look to this level of capability because it’s the only affordable option.
I think the biggest message I take from you’re post is that the Royal Navy is NOT the US Navy. The idea that we should try and replicate a Nimitz set-up is misguided overkill when compared to the likely level of capability the Royal Navy will need over the next 50 years.
God forbid we ever get tangled up with the American/Chinese sabre rattling in the Pacific. I think the British role should be taking some of the slack in the Mediterranean and Atlantic as the Americans shift east, hopefully in conjunction with increased NATO and EU cooperation.
Lets just hope the Lightning B eventually comes down in price so we can afford a decent fleet, this single project bleeding the MOD white isn’t a very attractive prospect.
Good article Martin.
Personally speaking; i’m confident that we will end up with a capability to put three squadrons of something on a carrier, even if it takes a while to get there.
Great write-up, thank you for your insights.
Only one comment point if I may?
- “As the F35B is dependent on engine thrust for returning weight for every pound of thrust we add, we can add a pound of returning stores.”
Unlike the Harrier, the F-35B relies on the LiftFan sub-assembly for a large part of it’s vertical lift, in the region of 20,000lbs.
Although an increase in F135 thrust would likely increase the amount of shaft horsepower available from the spool, the amount of power transferred to the LiftFan through the clutch and gearbox may not be on a 1:1 ratio.
I completely agree that with the unmanned STOVL aircraft discussion: There’s no reason why we’re prevented from applying the LiftSystem, or something similar to it, to a UCAV. Developed by Rolls Royce under additional license, or in conjunction with, Lockheed-Martin.
There’s also no reason why the Pegasus approach, or the Plenum Chamber Afterburning concept for the P.1154 cannot be revisited either.
Hmmm, I’m not sure the Imperial Fleet would be happy with a STOVL CVF. But being more akin to the Rebel Alliance I guess we’ll have to settle for anything we can get.
Putting aside differences between STOVL/CATOBAR or B/C my only remaining problem is that future (cash strapped) governments will see CVF as the only required flattop meaning she’ll never embark any more than a 50:50 split between jets and copters (24 F35B + 24 Merlin) because we’ll never get LHDs to replace Albion/Bulwark or an LPH to replace Ocean.
This leaves us disproportionately worse off in terms of value for money.
i.e.
2 CVF + 2 LHD –> max 36 jets + Brigade level assault
2 CVF (as LHA) + 2 LPD –> max 24 jets + two Battalion assault
Only time will tell!
Great Post Martin.
I would like to think that in the future the UK, would order the V-22, for all the reasons you mentioned. One problem the V-22 has in the COD role though, is that you can get the engine of the F35, into the back of it!
Us crazy Brits would probably just fly the V-22 with the proverbial boot open, tying a rag to the protruding rear of the F135 to signal to other aircraft that it extends beyond the Osprey…
What would you like to see replacing Albion/Bulwark and Ocean?
Also, would you look in the direction of Mistral construction accepting they would need significant escort as per Opération Baliste in Lebanon 2006 or would you look at something that could act more independently?
Candidate platform suggestions always welcome!
Very interesting & well argued.
The main error is the assertion at the end that, in a major war, a carrier would be nothing but a big target. In fact, the sea is still huge, modern carriers are surprisingly quiet, & tankers give off similar radar returns & are much more common than carriers. So carriers are still difficult to find, even in good weather. As carriers are always part of Task Groups, even once found they are difficult & dangerous to attack. Thus, they are fully combat capable for a major war.
Note also that the traditional use of carriers in the RN was for air defence of the fleet, destruction of the enemy fleet (whether at sea or in harbour) & support of amphibious operations. USN-style deep strike has rarely been an RN concern. Thus the reduced range of the F35B (in comparison to the F35C) is not really a serious problem. The increased range of the F35B in comparison to the Sea Harrier is a great benefit. The RN will use cruise missiles from SSNs for deep strike.
Thanks for the comments guys
@ Challenger and Jedi – I certainly hope prices for F35B eventually come down. I think eventually we will see 36 F35B able to operate off of CVF if it’s ever required in a surge. It would be great if we could perhaps do a bi annual exercise with a full load just to prove to our allies and adversaries that we can do it if need be.
@ The other Chris – I totally spaced on the lift fan instead of harrier style thrust. I do believe that over time we will see this improved though. The F35C bring back weight will likely never improve over the next 30 – 40 years.
@ Simon – I would certainly love to see the RN operate LHA’s however at least having 2 large CVF’s gives us options. Ocean is hardly an ideal platform but the RN makes it work well and I think we will see the same with CVF in the LPH role. Operating 24 F35 B and 24 Merlin at one time is way beyond what we have ever been able to do in the past even in the grand old days of the 50’s and 60’s. It’s better than anyone else outside the USA can manage as well.
@ Simon 257 – I was not aware that the F35 engine could not fit inside the V22 but then given its size will it fit inside a C2? V22 for COD is way better than anything we have ever had before. Let’s just hope we can eventually get some.
@ The other Chris
Good old British ingenuity
I would like to see Argus, Albion and Bulwark replaced by two large LHD’s. Given the small size of the escort fleet it would be good to see these fitted with a decent AAW capability with Sea Ceptor or even Aster 15. That being said I think the combo of 2 QE’s and 2 Albion’s is good enough for the next decade or so.
@ Keith
“The main error is the assertion at the end that, in a major war, a carrier would be nothing but a big target. In fact, the sea is still huge, modern carriers are surprisingly quiet, & tankers give off similar radar returns & are much more common than carriers”
I have no doubt that carries can still provide capabilities in a major all-out war. However given there expense I would see that 10 + SSN’s would be far more survivable and capable platforms. Factoring in all the escorts as well we might be able to get 20 SSN’s which would be a real game changer in combat vs. a single runway and aircraft.
If we are talking major pier conflict though while the carrier might be quiet all the EM thrown up into the air by the escorts is going to be relatively easy to track by ionospheric return or satellites. In a real war with Nuclear weapons if you can find it you can kill it. This was one of the main reasons we dropped carries in the 1970’s and I still believe it’s a valid point today.
The Other Chris,
2 x Juan Carlos without the ski-jump?
Personally I’d have commissioned 4 x Wasp as the entire front line fighting fleet in the first place but I’d have had to bank on the F35B being a goer – which it wasn’t at some point.
X47b has not yet landed on a carrier largely due to the planned use of surrogate aircraft and a ground rig during development – this reduces the need for large numbers of expensive but short lived prototypes, (there are only two). The relevant X47b launch and recovery systems were initially tested in a King Air, and have landed and launched an F18 surrogate on a carrier. The systems were then replicated on the Iron Bird ground rig, and an X47b subsequently carried out autonomous arrested recovery on a land ‘carrier’ a year ago. True carrier landings are scheduled for next year, and so do not appear to present the massive engineering challenge that is suggested.
Yes naval forces that know what they are doing can be very invisible. Look up the stories of Ark Royal off the US coast in the seventies. The vessel did some serious chess moves and remained undetected. So one cannot agree that they are anything like sitting ducks. If the fleet is doing its job she’d be very hard to find indeed. Remember the folk looking for her won’t be radiating much if at all. It’s like two men in a dark room with pistols and a torch, who switches on their torch first…?
I mostly agree with Simon. HMSs America and Tripoli would have been more appropriate carriers for the Royal Navy, along with two similar LHD – the ships could all be swing role providing either a secondary carrier or assault capability as necessary. Fewer jets on any given ship, but more available flight decks – and in terms of Navy crewmen, with just four big ships, perhaps the most efficient delivery of that scale of amphibious capability.
@ Brian Black
“and so do not appear to present the massive engineering challenge that is suggested”.
It’s one thing to have it land and take of a carrier its quite another for it to operate in the middle of a very busy carrier airgroup. The main sticking point with Unmanned Air systems at present is their operation in busy sky’s either military or civilian. Don’t get me wrong I think it will work and it will be great but it’s no justification for CATOBAR. Large scale deployments of UCAVS from a carrier is likely 20 years away. Even the USN only plans to field four onboard by the mid 2020’s.
@ Phil – You are right that if the carrier switches of radar and all radio comms it will be difficult to detect. However it will also be completely defenseless. If the other blind man does happen to stumble across you with an aircraft armed with supersonic cruise missiles it’s going to be a bad day.
@ Brian – America cost’s about the same as QE Class. I would rather have 65,000 t than 40,000t for the same price. The RN evaluated 40,000 t designs as well as 50,000 t and found them wanting. Two LHD’s would be great but just cutting the size of QE would not get them for us. If I can only have CVF’s and LPD’s than I want the CVF’s to be as big as possible.
I’ve never figured why USS America costs so much – she should be a cut down Wasp so actually cheaper (no well deck and extra AVCAT in the dock-down tanks)?
Is it anything to do with the self-defence fit that makes CVF look a bit prone?
@ Simon – All US vessels are expensive. The newer designs in the US seem to take the biscuit which I suspect is the reason for the higher cost of the America
martin,
The thing is it’s not really a new design.
Yeah that’s true and LCS is a barley armed speed boat but both still cost a fortune. US Shipping building makes ours look amazingly cheap and efficient. Its the problem that when you have a budget and a targeted number of vessels you will always end up using the budget and getting less vessels than you want.
“However it will also be completely defenseless”
Yeah and they could hit an iceberg or a shark with an exocet strapped to its back, what if what if what if.
The point is EMCON and deft manoeuvring is in itself one of the best defences.
And it is standard practise on all Navies.
@Martin
Yeah I think we will hopefully end up in a situation where 36 JCA can be embarked for short periods as a demonstration of the capability.
I really hope the price comes down. 40-60 is enough airframes to properly do carrier ops or ground ops, not both. We probably need an eventual figure of around 100 to do both effectively.
I would definitely like to see 2x LHD to replace Albion, Bulwark and Ocean. Probably not yet as I think the current fleet (minus Ocean) has a bit of life left in it. Sea Ceptor and a strong array of CIWS would be a good idea given the lack of escorts.
1 CVF and 1 LHD each heading active task groups with their sister ships in reserve wouldn’t be a bad set-up, especially given current financial considerations.
Do we really need a replacement for Argus in the aviation role? If you have 4 capital ships all bringing decent capabilities to the table then surely a smaller medical ship would be fine?
I know alternatives exist, but I can’t think of a better choice out there than 2 x Juan Carlos LHD’S.
Obviously primarily use them as amphibious/helicopter platforms, but also why not keep the ski ramp so they can operate Lightnings if it’s ever called for.
It would be very useful to factor in that kind of flexibility.
@ Phil – Without doubt, But in an all out shooting war with China would you rather have 20 SSN’s or a CBG?
Are there any sovereign British LHD designs floating around from BMT or similar?
Unless we build under license, we probably have to accept we won’t be purchasing a foreign design for a primary warship.
Why not have 20 SSNs and a CBG? In fact we could have about 40 SSNs and about 6-7 CBGs given enough warning since we won’t be fighting China on our own.
And also, I’d emphasise CBGs over SSNs since the CBGs are far more versatile in every way over SSNs which are limited in their mission scope. There’s not much a CBG can’t do.
@simon
Was going to mention having Juan Carlos and retaining Ski jumps for maximum flexibility but Challenger got there before me. Be a bit like Hermes and Vinci combo in 82 but better!
Fairly relaxed about F35b recently given likelihood of retaining both cvfs.
Is there mileage in reactivating a flight of the Sea Harriers they have at Culdrose as a kind of trials unit – not on active service – to try to retain skills and aid in working up QE prior to first Bs being delivered. Probably not worth the cost I guess.
http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=41376
About 12 SHARs/T8s possible engine running condition?
@ Martin – outstanding post, most of which I agree with. Perhaps we should go for three, with one roled as an LPH? Of course then if you don’t need an ARG you may be able to operate 3 CVG’s…
I lost my previous post Hence the orphaned post above.
I said something about agreeing with challenger on the Juan Carlos retaining ski jumps to add flexibility.
Then I asked whether there was an mileage reactivating a trials flight of SHARS non operationally to retain skills and aid the work up of QE prior to the Bs being delivered?
PS I think 892 and 809 sqd NAS ought to fly the first operational Bs….
BZ Martin.
RE:Wasp class. When I was a kid I used to imagine the RN operating 3 Wasp based carriers, each operating 24-36 AV-8B’s (with Blue Vixen), 8-9 ASW Osprey’s, and 3-4 AEW Osprey’s. I couldn’t decide whether to retain the amphibious capability or streamline the hull and get better range/speed.
Today, the F-35B offers a massive improvement over the AV-8B, even with a Blue Vixen radar, and the Osprey appears to still be the only non-helicopter VTOL aircraft option.
However, the cost of the F-35 (all variants) and the V-22 is not cheap and is the main issue which could stop Martin’s vision above becoming reality. Some also have safety concerns with the Osprey…
Interesting piece but I would add a number of things on the f35b v c comparison. The f35b has a combat radius in mission config of 469nm to the f35c 613nm this I would add is pretty immaterial as a/c will regularly take off fuel light and tank quite quickly the time airborne will depend on prox to the tanker which makes voyager so important and the stupid decision of not including aar on a400m. The g limit on both a/c are 7 and 7.5 and there payload difference in uk service is none existant. The internal air ground stores pylon on f35b is 1500lbs and 2500lbs on f35c. The uk has no current or planned 2000lb class weapon that would be internal carried by any f35 type. The prime minister made a huge thing in payload diff ect when in reallity none exists. The biggest difference between stovl and conventional a/c has been the stovl has been unable to carry the larger sensors and data links this no longer exists in the f35 series. While the c version maybe marginally better in higher alt operations the b is a lighter jet which has other benefits indeed if you look at f35b it’s empty and max takeoff weights are nearly identical to tornado gr but with more wing and power.
As for AWACS the e3d is a quantum leap over any hawkeye version and in all reality the seaking capabilty it actually much better than many give it credit for. In all f35b merlin AWACS and voyager is without exceptional world class.
“the stovl has been unable to carry the larger sensors and data links this no longer exists in the f35 series.”
Sorry Mark, but this part doesn’t really sound good. What happened?
RE: Flexibility. DK Brown wasn’t a fan of the Sea-Harrier but he suggested the fleet should be designed to maximise their use; any Helicopter carriers should be full flight decked to at least refuel them and his proposed DDH could do the same.
Having more platforms in the fleet which the F-35B could land on, refuel and then take off again, if not operate continously from, would be a great idea.
Everybody is assuming we are going to get 2 QEs – don’t forget we are dealing with an army-centric Tory party. Also, please stop referring to the F35B as “stovl” – truth is it will hardly ever land vertically. Anyone fancy doing a rolling landing in an 18 ton aircraft onto a pitching, rolling deck at 70-80mph with only three wheel brakes?
Not sure what you mean observer. Harrier was never able to carry sensors equivalent to f16/f18 ect the f35b doesn’t have this problem there identical to a and c perhaps the statement wasn’t entirely clear
Hi, Martin. I expect America is more sturdily built and has a broader sensor and weapons fit than QE. A Royal Navy ‘America’ would likely be cheaper, and it would have tied the concept to the F35B, so no expensive flip-floping.
I personally think solo UK carrier ops would likely consist of half a dozen F35B for third-world, Siera Leone like missions. Or maybe a dozen in the next league of operation, in a Libya like intervention. So sixteen-ish F35B and eight-ish Merlin on a 45kt ship is ok with me. To me, the extra tonnage is just wasted space, more steel to buy, more ship to maintain, more money spent on dockyards and berthing, more fuel required to push that dead-weight through the water for 50 years, all unnecessary. And more refits too, because we’d be able to sell a 45kt ship after 25-30 years with its out-dated systems and build another, or a catobar carrier if the situation called for it – while nobody actually wants a QE now, let alone a second hand one.
There are more than 2 options,STOVL/CATOBAR. The Russians & the Indians have ski ramps & arrester wires. Its how I would fit out QE/PoW. It gives you more flexibility & means you have more options than just F-35B. I wonder if it has been costed?
Remember, it is not just agile combat jets that could be modified for STOBAR, but STOL transports as well, so Viking TwinOtters, CN-235, Defenders,Sukhoi S-80, Skytruck,or even Shorts Skyvans if we put them back into production, could be used for COD,AEW,Tanker duties.
Is now the right time to raise the option of building a 3rd CVF to replace the Albions and Argus…
On a more serious note, will the CVF have command and control facilities that would make the Albions capabilities redundant?
@John Hartley
While those planes might be able to take off empty from a STOBAR QEC it seems unlikely they could do so carrying any useful sort of load.
For COD you need to be lifting a payload of around 5,000KG. To be useful as an emergency AAR tanker it needs to be around 10,000KG. Similarly if you want to load them up the radars and computers for ‘full fat’ AWACS, or with MPA kit and torpedos, they will not be taking off light. That’s where the CATapult would have come in handy. As it is if we really really want all those things the V-22 is a strong enough lifter to do the job.
Others have already pointed out on other recent threads that to survive repeated arrested landings requires structural strengthening, which also increases airframe dry weight. Without a CAT on the front of the ship to shoot that weight back into the sky the usefulness of your cargo lifter if further undermined.
I agree with John Hartley that STOBAR would be a better solution for the RN. The Americans even successfully showed that the E2C could launch from a ski jump back in the 1980s so fitting arrestor wires opens up many more possibilities for AEW/AAR/COD aircraft. The only problem is – and it’s a biggy – how do you fit an arrestor hook to the F35B, which has a downward swivelling exhaust nozzle? I think we may have to stick to unarrested rolling landings for F35B. BTW, does anyone know if the QEs are going to have angled decks for rolling landings? Bolters would be out of the question I imagine at the lower landing speeds but at least an angled deck would prevent the landing F35 from hitting anything and might even make it possible to have simultaneous take-offs and landings, which was originally touted as great advantage of STOVL.
@Repulse
Love the idea: HMS Duke of York maybe to go with the ‘RFA Fergie’ we have fantasised about creating elsewhere.
Unfortunately while I’m sure a QEC would make a great ‘commando carrier’ for vertical insertions it would be a crap way of getting trucks loaded with supplies ashore. As @Red Trousers and others will be keen to tell you it takes an awful lot of trucks/tracks to sustain even a single battle group ashore for any length of time, let alone a Brigade or Division.
What ever comes after the Albions therefore needs plenty of lane metres for all those trucks to park in AND plenty of fast landing craft to get them ashore, AND plenty of helos to do vertical insetion on ninjas onto the beacheads at “H” Hour.
For a while now I will confess I have been looking at ‘planes such as the Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer and An-2 Colt as possible starting points for an AEW platform. The An-2 has no stall speed as such.
There’s a dodgy comparison between Mantis and X47b. Any unmanned automated aircraft will face many of the same challenges. That a propellor aircraft flew from a carrier in 1917 is irrelevant, that plane would have had a little fella sat inside. And the suggestion that X47b would be difficult to operate as part of ‘a functional air group’ isn’t accompanied by an explanation as to why another automated aircraft will apparently fit in seamlessly. Also, X47b has years of technology maturation behind it, while Sea Mantis doesn’t exist. The endurance of X47b is understated too, as with AAR it’s expected to be over 50 hours, while Mantis has to return to ship. Mantis is not stealthy either, which limits its application. As for comparing X47b with smaller, cheaper uavs – there are none smaller and cheaper that can take off from a carrier and autonomusly deliver a 4500lbs payload 2000 miles away, or more with refueling. It is what it is, there is no comparison with Mantis.
A third QE! Please, no.
In full on fantasy fleet mode, alongside two carriers in Admiral Brian’s RN there would be two large LHD providing the first tier of amphibious lift. But I’d also have a third LHD in the RFA configured as a logistics landing ship cum aviation support ship, operating with two cheap and cheerful Bay like ships to provide the second tier of amphib lift – centering the aviation on one RFA ship. The flight deck gives self defence options and allows the ship to be used as a maintenance hub and aircraft transport ship for the RN fleet – but another QE? We don’t need another monster aviation-only ship.
@PE: “crap way of getting trucks loaded with supplies ashore.” I say it half tongue in cheek but to push the point a little further, if you do not need the command and control facilities, why not just use the Bays / Points? Amphibious assaults would be over the horizon in any case.
They’re still ruddy pointless, these carriers. They’ve been pointless since about 1992 or whenever some sozzled old Admiral first thought of them, they’re pointless today after half a dozen design changes and U-turns, but 3 times the price, and they’ll be pointless when they come into service at 5 times the original price.
CATOBAR / STOVL, B or C, it’s all down in the weeds. We don’t need the sodding things. There’s no money for any of the mythical AAR or COD airframes, the Sea Kings will have to soldier on doing whatever they can with the Searchwater radars. The Andrew are going to truly regret ever going down this route as the more useful frigate floaty little boats are paid off to keep these monsters in the water, and by about 2020, we’re going to be asking tough questions about replacing Ocean and the Albions, and there still won’t be any pigging money left.
The original sozzled old Admiral will probably be in a nursing home by then and completely unaccountable for this lunacy.
instead of juan carlos, how about the korean dokdo, spanish will be too busy building our voyagers to build a ship!!! good specs on it as well and pound to a pinch of salt cheaper to have the hull built in korea and finiahed off here (probably easier to negotiate that with koreans than spanish unions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo_class_amphibious_assault_ship
Might I suggest that it might primarily be the timing of the ship building that could be the problem? If the UK was still flush with funds, spending a little on high value items like the carrier would not have been such a terror, however, when the financial crisis hit, money suddenly became tight and the ships became an economical burden to finish.
So maybe it was just a victim of “wrong time, wrong place”?