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.
Now now x this site would be much poorer if we walked around patting each other on the back and agreeing about how wonderfully perceptive we all are.
I am sure Simon has a thick enough skin.
@ x
Thanks I guess.
Again, I apologize if my tone was too confrontational for the site. First time I have bothered to comment on anything I have seen on the site as I have mostly consumed the content here as it was linked through other boards. It was a response not tailored for this community, which I am unfamiliar with, but I put it here as I felt it was only fair if I was going to slag the authors work that I say it directly to them rather than somewhere they may or may not be able to defend it.
However I still standby all the points I made on the articles shortcomings.
@Jeremy M H
I found your comments did raise some interesting points, I certainly didn’t agree with all of them and I thought Martin’s article was excellent. I wouldn’t however wish the forum to go down the route of trashing other people’s work nor to back pat and to fail to provide interesting debate.
The thrust of your conclusion is that we are getting what we are getting because that is all we can afford. I struggle to reconcile this conclusion with what actually happened.
In summary, even the most ardent supporters of CATOBAR would have stopped to think about the VfM argument when faced will a bill for £5Bn (I had previously heard £2Bn + £900M, but I think that is irrelevant). This astronominical cost when compared against the cost of building the two carriers to the original timeframe and design was £4.5 – £5Bn would surely result in a rethink.
It did and Martin makes a case that helps me adjust to what is certainly a less capable option. It helps to see the glass as half full rather than half empty.
The STOVL version fits our strategic needs and global ambition. Any keen observer can recognise that although in an ideal world and with limitless money CATOBAR would be great, in the real world STOVL suits the Royal Navy just fine. The Americans of course need that kind of range and power for it’s upcoming cold war with China, but the astute bystander will recognise that no other nation in the world is in this position and so doesn’t requite anything like that kind of clout.
I’m still worried about the costs though. A fleet of around 100 is needed to provide for both FAA and RAF requirements. Can the MOD afford that?
Controversy over the catapults seems to have eclipsed the fact that the CATOBAR version was meant to be something like 25% cheaper per unit. I know forecasting the cost of a project like this many years into the future will always be murky, but are we in danger of committing to STOVL carriers and aircraft without the necessary funds to construct a meaningful capability?
@ Jeremy – Thanks for your comments. Always nice to have someone really dumb try to pick holes in things and make themselves look stupid. I have tried to answer as many of your comments below as I could be bothered to except the spelling mistake. I always love petty people who find one mistake out of 3702 words to pick up on. I apologies if this omission destroyed your enjoyment of the article.
– I could have compared the F14 instead of the F18 but it makes little difference the trend for improvement in STOVL aircraft is very clear and although you claim my argument is bollocks you offer no evidence.
If you read the article you will see that while I have no doubt extra range is always useful the range on the B version is hardly poor and more than sufficient for operational usage. We can’t justify the massive extra expense of CATOBAR carriers on this basis.
You claim I got aircraft ranges wrong but you fail to state what they are.
Again if you read the article the engine power is in relation to bring back weight. More Thrust allows the B version to bring back more weight as it does not rely on aerodynamic lift. The F35C does rely on aerodynamic lift and already has an incredibly high landing speed. More thrust will not help it bring back more stores. It’s something called the laws of physics.
“You dare say there is not a UAV on the market today that cannot launch under those conditions? Based on what exactly? The typical takeoff length of a Predator/Reaper is 2,000 feet (609 meters)”
Going back to those rules of physics the carrier is moving forward at 25 Knots into the wind and has a very large ramp at the front. All these factors essentially reduce take of weight. I have no figures for the mk 9 however the predator has a stall speed of just 62 mph which I believe would allow it to relatively easily take of under these conditions.
Again if you read the article which by the way was a justification for STOVL over CATOBAR carriers I was indicating that UAV’s or UCAV’s are no justification for CATOBAR. In order to call my article a pile of garbage I think you should explain to us how CATOBAR carriers are superior in this regard.
Also going back to the article I wrote not sure what you read I actually never said we should use land based UAV’s on the carrier. I do advocate building something along the lines of a Sea Mantis however.
“Other than the fact that Mantis is not yet operational on land”
Yes it is http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-06-22/mantis-return-air
In case you do not believe me here is a picture of it flying in 2009. It’s at least as operational as X47
“You could not go after even a marginal air defense system with MALE UAV’s.”
No doubt but I never said you could, There are many ways to knock down an air defence the four X47 a USN carrier will have aren’t going to be up to much of a CEAD operation are they? A MALE UAV is much more useful if for instance I want to spend a long time over Libyan air space looking for a killing tanks and artillery. It’s not great for an invasion of China though I will grant you that. However in the operations we are likely to be in over the next decade or two would be more useful than an X47.
“The next STOVL craft for the Marines could be nothing more than a specialized STOVL bomb truck due to their relatively narrow needs.”
Not sure what you are arguing here I would say the F35 B is exactly that as is every USN fighter today.
In reference to your comments on AEW. What I was saying is that in almost any operation we will be in E2D would defer to E3. If we ever had to fight in an area where we could not use E3 and we had to fight on our own (I can only think of one and I am not going to name it) then CROWSNEST will do an adequate job
In terms of AAR a lot of CATOBAR fanatics bang on about the USN AAR capability when in fact in is not an operational enhance rather an austere capability used because of the limitation of CATOBAR landings. It’s not an argument to justify the expense of CATOBAR
I can’t be a**ed going through the rest of your comments but I would just say that you clearly did not get it and leave it there.
@ Paul G
“Jeremy M H, you raise some interesting points, however you put them across like a horse’s arse”
Thanks that was the word I was looking for
@ Jeremy
but I stand by my claim that the article is stilted from the outset towards a certain conclusion and makes intellectually dishonest points to get there.
Going back to the point of the article I was stating why I have changed my position on supporting STOVL instead of CATOBAR. You never really argue why this is wrong.
Back at Jeremy
“Again, I apologize if my tone was too confrontational for the site. First time I have bothered to comment on anything I have seen on the site as I have mostly consumed the content here as it was linked through other boards. It was a response not tailored for this community, which I am unfamiliar with, but I put it here as I felt it was only fair if I was going to slag the authors work that I say it directly to them rather than somewhere they may or may not be able to defend it”.
Sounds like the article did its job then and brought you off the side lines, welcome to Think Defence
@ Opinion 3
“It did and Martin makes a case that helps me adjust to what is certainly a less capable option. It helps to see the glass as half full rather than half empty”.
Thanks, cheque is in the post.
@ Ace Rimmer
I agree in the past the trend has been for aircraft to get heavier despite the fact their electronics have gotten lighter. This extra weight has come with the payoff of a massive gain in capability. However weather or not this trend continues in future is open to debate.
If it does the F35 B has more options for improvement of bring back weight, Improvements in the lift fan and engine power will help.
The F35 C is limited by aerodynamic constraints for bring back. Only a redesign of the wing will improve this which is likely to be very costly in comparison to improvements in engines. Even then in order to improve bring back weight with a wing change the F35C would likely have to trade lift for speed. Without a major breakthrough in aerodynamics I suspect with a landing speed of 160 miles an hour the F35C is already at the limit.
Peace guys, peace. It’s not as if he’s the first one to start a… vigourous debate here. I distinctively remember me and Phil’s difference in views regarding static and mobile warfare, me and Chris’s disagreement on the usefulness of Metal Storm, and most recently, S O’s “match in kerosene” of what I think is still base slander of the courage of forces in Afganistan who use forts and sangers.
In a way, Jeremy’s just reacting to the slant in the article, which I do admit is one, even if it’s done in “oh well, this is what we got.” style. If read in the wrong light, it might seem a pro-carrier piece, and a rabidly pro one. In another light, it could be someone looking for the half full glass.
Jeremy, think you’ll fit just fine here. We just happen to be in a lull after the storm.
@martin
Problem with tweaking the lift fan and engines is that the area for both is incredibly space constrained. Yes, there is a “possibility” of improvements, but it’s going to be very difficult. The C on the other hand, does not have a lift fan and so has a bit more space to play with, making it easier to fit bigger or slightly more misshaped engines to increase power. IIRC, the lift fan is taking up the space for the fuel tank in the B version, which means that space is already used up, whereas the C version still has the “fuel for equipment” card to play.
@ Observer
The point I was making was about bring back weight for stores. One of the major criticism’s of the STOVL version is that it has limited bring back weight compared to the C version.
The C version relies on aerodynamic lift to bring back stores. It can only gain more lift by landing at a higher speed. Given that it already has the highest landing speed of any carrier aircraft in history around 160 miles an hour I do not feel it will ever be practical for the F35C to land at a higher speed.
It will be difficult to improve the lift fan on the B version. However I do believe it will be possible. I am no rocket scientist however I believe that increasing engine thrust alone will significantly improve the bring back weight when using the rolling landing technique we are developing. It already seems that the current F35 engine will be significantly improved in it’s next incarnation.
I would bet a fiver the advent engine tech will be on f35 sometime in the future as they are supposed to fit in the same space. This demo is suppose to significantly reduce fuel burn so that would improve things. RR have already offered Lockheed a small increase in lift fan performance but it’s not been progressed at this stage the current vertical thrust limit is 40500lbs. Plenty large enough. The f35c would possibly get a change to its high lift devices if needed to reduce it landing speed however the issue here is high lift devices and low observable don’t mix.
As for uavs x47b ect. This is a tech demo model no weapons system ect the two proto types have flow about 23 times is already 18months late the programs cost 820m dollars for 2 a/c and has just had its isd pushed back another 2 years. Also the strike bit has sort of disappeared it’s now classed as a deep and persistent recon asset expect the actual air vehicle to be somewhat different to what’s on show today.
Hi Challenger @midnight,
Where did you get the STOBAR version being 25% cheaper?
Yesterday someone provided a good link to the naval architects carrier design discussion (this is from there, p. 1 of the 2):
” Nine design options have been
developed:
4 for STOVL aircraft
3 for CTOLISTOBAR
1 SLEP
1 STUFT.
Apart from the number of aircraft, all are to a common requirement, including
a 50% surge aircraft capacity.”
- the past tense is for these designs having been developed far enough to have been roughly costed, and only then the tender was put out
-CATOBAR came out with the benefit of being 5% smaller, but at the cost of launching planes payload-restricted
- the much vaunted tanker-based design was offering the worst value for money
- and @Simon: the proxy for your preferred Wasp was to start with the Ocean design, building it to military spec and stretching it enough, to be able to support a large enough F35B wing… and surprise, surprise, it would cost close to the same as a bespoke carrier (but be inferior, except for launching troops as its main weaponry)
Challenger, apologies, you did not mention STOBAR at all but were talking about relative life time costs of the B and C
- anyway, my previous post not wasted as STOBAR enthusiasm shows up on TD frequently
Jeremy MH makes a lot of salient points – particularly on USMC not having to go it alone unlike the RN and them not needing a number of things. I’d also heard that the America Class could take EMALs so if they had to, they could go for C after they retire the Harriers if the B was cancelled.
Could we take this beyond though the combat range of F35 C/B and other combat aircraft and can someone please tabulate the range and persistance of different AEW fixed and rotary aircraft from CATOBAR and STOVL configurations and what range they can detect and observe out to, which presumably is much greater and more useful for the 99% of the time the carriers will not be operating in opposed environments?
Mark, do you attach credence to the reports that they, as in ” the strike bit has sort of disappeared it’s now classed as a deep and persistent recon asset” will be paired up with the Regional Bomber (though not necessarily starting from the same location, but the recon asset going in first and relaying direct to the strike platform, eliminating the satellite link)?
ArmChairCivvy,
“…and @Simon: the proxy for your preferred Wasp was to start with the Ocean design, building it to military spec and stretching it enough, to be able to support a large enough F35B wing…”
I think I suggested (with the benefit of hindsight) that I’d have procured 4 x Wasp to replace Vince, Lusty, Ark, Ocean, Albion, and Bulwark. Two operational at any time, with one in deep refit and the other alongside. I’d then have one as a light carrier (18 jet + AEW) and the other as an LHD (4 LCU + 12 assault + 12 attack + 6 ASW).
Each would carry a minimum of 1600t AVCAT (enough to operate two small jet squadrons and AEW for five days) and the 100 vehicles all and sundry seem to specify.
They’d probably have costed £2b each if we fitted them with wth RAM and Sea Sparrow equivalents, but £8b for the entire fleet* and the ability to be in two places at once and surge to three hulls in an emergency, sounds like a good deal to me.
* excluding escorts and tankers.
E-mals would have to be some system to throw a 30 tonne aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio of 1.23 off a ship that won’t be able to do much more than 22kts.
That was me, waves.
Theres been so much speculation and assumption about the CVF and I think reading those papers give a good indicator of the type of thinking that went into what we are getting.
The stuff about EMCAT is really interesting and I think that we should have kept it going, thats when new UK CATOBAR died. The thing about EMALS is that apparently its not been designed ‘for’ the Ford class so theres going to be integration work done to make it fit and I do wonder if CVN78 will end up with steam cats and EMALS will end up in CVN79 as a testbed before it gets retro fitted to the other CVNs.
IMHO any EMCAT solution could be designed to fit more sympathetically with the CVF. The Gallery deck is designed to take arresting gear and cats as the CVF design is the CATOBAR design ‘STOVL’ed. I just don’t think the existing EMALS kit is a sympathetic match.
Hi Simon, a good deal indeed, if it was available at that price. But you cannot use the price of Wasps, from long ago, you have not used the price of Americas as a proxy, so I quote (went back to find the link):
“[a]range of STOVL designs has also been developed using the design
of the LPH, HMS Ocean, as a basis. This has involved progressively:
#Reconfiguring the hangar [20 planes so your 2 small sqdrns]
#Lengthening the design to increase aircraft capacity
#Re-engining to increase speed
#Converting to full military standards.
No small undertaking though fortunately much easier on a Computer Aided
Design system than in steel! This work identified, in broad terms, how military standards can be traded against cost, which increased progressively as the design requirements were increased from the comparatively simple and commercial LPH to the full military requirements which might be expected of a front line warship. Interestingly, but to be expected, the cost of the most demanding variant was close to that of the equivalent carrier …”
http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12594
Simon I don’t think the 4xWASP idea fits with our requirements in terms of the fixed wing component have you read those papers I linked to yet?
We have a certain sortie rate requirement of (can’t remmeber exactly) of 130ish. The WASP class can’t generate that and the ammo and fuel bunkerage takes a hit because of the well deck and ballast systems etc.
Albion and Bulwark are very new also.
Factor in that Wasps are not being made anymore and that the new America class cost 6.8 billion with a per unit cost of 3.4 billion. The first two are without well decks the third on onwards will cost more as the design and build will have to change.
One more place in my earlier post where I reversed the abbreviations in my head; As a correction I meant to comment on STOBAR evaluation in the below
“CATOBAR came out with the benefit of being 5% smaller, but at the cost of launching planes payload-restricted”
@jeremy, I thought the factual content in your comment was very well presented ( i suspect TD will be badgering you for a post) it was just the name calling, i did a rather short post fatted out with photos and it was quite hard work knowing that a hell of a lot of people were going to read it. That’s why i didn’t like the name calling,when people have taken the time to contribute. (slightly two faced as i used the term “horse’s arse” oops!!!).
@x, 30 tonnes, well they’re halfway as the wikki states C-2 is 15 tonnes,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo7aeB5Ak8U
@the other chris, dokdo is more than a design on paper though
Acc
Certainly a possibility the difficulties of drone strike in Contested airspace are putting prices thru the roof and causing a certain amount of legal problems.
The royal navy doesn’t and never has had to go it alone awac cover based on rn ships is defensive in nature in which a merlin aew is more than adequate. The benefit of having fastjet a/c on a carrier is the reluctance of countries to accept basing of offensive aircraft. There is many that state the stovl option is inferior to cv in my view it is not it maybe in less gd in some area but it’s also better in others in essence different but not inferior.
Also the grid type sensor capability offered in next gen aircraft such as f35 will advance things somewhat and blur more traditional thinking..
Martin
I don’t actually disagree with you on the B/C line.
But your reasoning behind it was deeply flawed.
“@ TrT – What would you have bombed with the magic range of 990km, What operation required that. As I said before the entire point of a carrier is to get in close to the targets or atleast closer than an airbase.”
And 990km is likely to be closer than an airbase.
And a range of 990km doesn’t mean we HAVE to operate at that range, we can be 200km off the beach and carry more, or if thats dangerous, we can move outside the range of enemy defences.
If getting as close as possible was all that mattered, we should be building wheels on the bottom of the ship so we could beach ourselves and wander through the countryside.
More range is always better, whether its cost effective is another matter. Arguing its not needed today because we didn’t need it yesterday is pretty poor.
We didnt need tanks at Crecy or Agincourt, so we should have got by without them at Ardenne and Granby?
“Your point about HK is bollocks, As someone who has lived and worked in Hong Kong I get no sense of impending doom from Honkies about China.”
Well as someone who’s office pays permanent host to a rotating group of young ladies happy to flirt away to get a chance to practice their English (and get their coursework corrected), I can only disagree.
That the UK felt the need to revoke their rights to leave Hong Kong for the UK leads me to believe more than a few were planning on leaving.
“HK is an undefendable position, It always has been.”
And where did I say we should do that?
Please do quote.
Because I said the exact opposite.
France invades Germany in the Saarland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
Germany responds with counter invasion far to the North
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_France
See, they didnt fight on the battle ground the other guy picked
Pakistan invades Indian controlled Kashmir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965
India responds by mounting thrusts much further west
They didnt bother trying to reclaim the territory they lost, they simply held other territory at ransom until Pakistan gave up.
“The thought of fitting it out in the rubble of Kowloon in a Thermonuclear exchange does not appeal to me nor do I suspect it appeals to the average Honkie.”
And now we’re on to nuclear weapons, presumably you dont want to fight it out in the nuclear rubble of Cornwall, best surrender that to the French then, and then you wont want to fight in the nuclear rubble of Bristol, best surrender that then.
Nuclear weapons really should be included in Godwins Law.
You win/avoid wars by convincing the other side to stop fighting, or never start.
You are of course correct, defending hong kong is impossible, so don’t, leave it undefended, simply attach massive conventional retaliation elsewhere, they can have hong kong undamaged, we level three cities on the mainland and go home. What are they going to do, bomb suffolk? How?
“Is this your justification for CATOBAR?.”
Not at all, I’m not sold on CATOBAR, but that doesnt mean your reasoning is any good.
“Also lest not forget we did take HK by force from the Chinese. They gifted it to us but under duress. The FI is a very different situation.”
Not really
Self Determination
We may have taken it through war, but it wasn’t really “ours” to give back.
If Self Determination means a damn, it was *theirs*
Excellent to see as always, side issues are used to ignore the real point someone was making
Catching up with comments whilst I work on the next monster post (no ships or aircraft), you lot had better stock the brew kit up!
Welcome to the new commenters
I fall into the camp that believes the F35B isn’t a compromise or ‘better than nothing’ but actually the best option and we should be glad the government reverted! As Challengers quite rightly pointed out, we are not the USN and have to have equipment that suits the UK.
My last take on the F35/CVF issue is below
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/making-sense-of-the-f35-decision/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/the-f35-and-mod-credibility/ (my favourite)
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/the-f35-decision/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/06/cvf-aircraft-launch-and-recovery-equipment-foi/
And a handful of posts from guests on the same subject…
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/defence-synergia-on-carrier-strike-and-the-f35/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/raasons-to-be-cheerful-part-b/
I like to encourage everyone who posts comments to write a post, the core objective of TD is to get people talking so whilst I do not necessarily agree with everything guest writers publish I am massively impressed and equally grateful that they get off their arses and take the time to write.
Let’s play nice eh?
mmoomin,
I can’t find your links (are they in another thread?).
However I’d like to point out that 4 x Wasp will give us much the same capability as 2 x CVF + 2 x LPD.
Assuming 1/2 the above are available at any time…
2 x Wasp: 40 jets, 4800t AVCAT, 6 LCAC + 2400 troops.
CVF + LPD: 40 jets, 3600t AVCAT (I don’t know how much Albion carries), 4 LCU + 4 LCVP + 2 Chinook + 1200 troops (600 on each).
As for sortie generation rate: if we maxed out QE with 36 jets we might be able to get up to 150 sorties for the first day surge but we’d have no copters for assault, support, or attack. The only way we could actually do a large-scale op is to bring QE in close with 24 jets and 24 copters. This limits us to about 100 sorties in the first day! Compare this with 2 x Wasp (one at range with 18 jets and one close in with copters galore and 6 x jets) and you’ll get much the same sortie generation rate between them – more so, in fact, due to the short-range requirement for the dedicated (on call) jets on the close-in Wasp.
In addition, we could float one of these out to do a “Libya job” and still have another available for a similar operation elsewhere. We’d never have been able to do that with the current thinking with the entire aviation capability in the Med. mostly sitting idle.
@ Paul G
That was interesting. But it is just a compatibility test. Was it actually being launched? A launch of a CATOBAR carrier is dependent on wind across the deck to aid lift and not just the catapult. That is the reason why carriers are built to speeds in the region of 32kts. One to generate apparent wind and two to be always into the wind and three so that can keep on the line of advance. A Harrier, a third of the weight of a F35c needs to use a good length of a Wasp class’s flight deck to get airborne. And even then it is relying on Harries nozzle to vector thrust. If EMALS can get around the weight problem of F35 and the low speed of the Americas it would have to be some system. Not saying it can’t be done. Just saying 10kt wind difference and a much bigger aeroplane is some hurdle.
Simon they are in the CVF Launch and Recovery thread.
Thanks TD for highlighting my earlier point!
I wonder if anyone can answer a couple of questions for me, I danced around it in a couple of my previous posts and the problem is still bugging me.
The only focus of reasoning for a switch back to the STOVL version was obviously the inflated, seemingly unbearable costs of fitting catapults. Yep fair enough I have no problems there.
However I clearly remember when the original switch to CATOBAR was made that the main reason was a 25% saving on the through life costs compared to the STOVL. So what are the implications now that we have gone back to the original choice?
Does it mean we will be paying 25% more, or have the comparative costs changed in the last 2 years?
Can the MOD afford this kind of commitment? (As I have said before I think a baseline of investment is needed to provide adequate resources for both RN and RAF needs, probably, in my view around 100 airframes).
It would be great if anyone could offer some knowledge and opinions on this subject.
At that time (so a while ago) there was a very good post where the break-even sat, between the calculated capital costs (upfront, and as estimated then) and the 25% over the life savings on the air wing choice
- the search facilities will really not let me find & post it, to update with the current/ announced figures
mmoomin,
Hmmm, I’ve given that thread a skim-read but can’t see anything eluding to the comparrison with Wasp.
It’s certainly interesting… but very vague. The history of our other carriers is great but I have most of that in book form. The CVF design part seems very lacking and/or very obvious. There is no detail about the actual design for, say, the 26 aircraft CATOBAR – which I’d be very interested in.
Put simply 2 x Wasp can embark as many aircraft as QE, hangar as many as QE (with some minor mods, as done on America) and deliver a similar sortie rate as QE. In addition, they can do a whole lot more – like land 3600 troops (two MEUs) on 6 LCAC and carry 12 MBT into battle!
Re next gen HMS Ocean
Iwould cross the Ocean design with that of the Queen Mary 2 liner. When research revealed large waves to be more common than thought, they gave the QM2 a 50% thicker hull than usual. Steel is cheap. Giving a new “Ocean” type ship a 50% thicker hull would not cost much more , but probably give an extra decade to service life.
QM2 has diesels for general running deep in the hull + a gas turbine for sprint speed high in the superstructure. Copy this on a new “Ocean”.
QM2 was affordable comercially, so none of this is exotic “unicorn horn” stuff.
@Simon
Are we comparing like with like because the America class is going to have two flights the first two of the class with the extended aviation facilities (as you have described), and from then on with the well deck capability.
They won’t however be building the ship with the benefits of both flights, that would require a bigger ship. I like the America lots, but I wouldn’t swap a QE for an America class, they jump we STO and VRL, bringback etc.
Liners have always had strong hulls; they are vehicles to facilitate communication. They sail in nearly all weathers and have to maintain a schedule. QM2 often gets compared to cruise ships which are vessels for, well, cruises where time keeping and seakeeping and strength aren’t as important as volume and low running costs. It is another instance of something looking similar but having an entirely different function like aircraft carriers and helicopter assault ships or tanks and self-propelled guns.
Opinion3,
Well, to be honest, I don’t think Wasp or America quite fits the bill (close) but they’re the nearest thing as far as I can see. I’d really go for Wasp with the hangar sized like America/Tripoli but with the well deck and the dock-down tanks still operational.
The idea of 4 x Wasp-ish ships goes deeper than simply the military effect. It’s also in cheaper design (one class), cheaper manufacturing (one yard) and also the continuality of production (one every 8-10 years forever). We’d stop this silly “surge” and “relax” build problem we have in the UK. We could probably then ramp up production to six or ramp down to three in the fleet depending on world-wide circumstances. There are so many reasons to have gone this way… if you pin the fact that F35B is definitely going to be a goer. I simply couldn’t ever have banked on that so would never actually have ordered them so it’s all a little academic.
I too would not swap a QE for an America, but I would swap a QE and Albion for 2 x Wasp-ish (as above)… now… given F35B looks okay!
@Simon
“I don’t think Wasp or America quite fits the bill …. hangar sized like America/Tripoli but with the well deck and the dock-down tanks ”
Ah yes I picture it, nice with BrahMos Block IIIs and a fleet of CH53Ks and V22s
Point about good design/capabilities, quantity and continuous construction is sensible and one I agree with, of course if only we could design and build to export we might also gain some of the benefits. Where did I read that Bae destroyed the T45 jigs? That is utter madness, I’d be delaying the T23 for a T45 @650M or two
@Martin
One issue I did think was worth mentioning as a current disadvantage in the F35B selection is that the weapons integration for the type is going to cause us additional expense and/or issues. I understood the F35C had all of our weapons integrated at main gate unlike the F35B
Opinion3,
Oh, to have got the export order that France got from Russia or Spain got from the Aussies!
We have very short-sighted and narrow-minded people running the show in this country – we should be leading, not following. But that’s what I’d expect from the lack of funding into higher education and proper apprenticeship/bursary placements into industry/military.
@Martin, true, a new wing would cost a packet, as would a new/improved lift engine.
Given the constraints of the design, money might be better invested in smaller weapons of a greater yield. I’m sure I read somewhere that a new explosive had been developed in the U.S that was substantially more effective than that used currently.
“Heart Of Oak says:
I’ve had a look on their site but can’t find anything about it anymore though.”
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1P2GvpQSxGo/Ti1hA3HkXOI/AAAAAAAAVDg/DJ-cxcPe7tw/s1600/LHD_upate_Feb_2011.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sqY89gbq6HM/Ti1hEEacmnI/AAAAAAAAVDk/sTLyX-U9H4A/s1600/img3.jpg
Dave
@x
“A launch of a CATOBAR carrier is dependent on wind across the deck to aid lift and not just the catapult. That is the reason why carriers are built to speeds in the region of 32kts. ”
US carriers, today, can launch while stationary, in port. The F-35b will be able to launch full loaded in still air without using all the deck.
EMC2,
Maybe “fully stealth loaded”, but “fully loaded, zero WOD”… no way!
@ EMC
In a cross wind, fully loaded, fully fueled?
And I don’t think I mentioned F35b.
“Maybe “fully stealth loaded”, but “fully loaded, zero WOD”… no way!”
A AV8B can do it no problem; max take off weight with half the deck of the Asturias. The F-35B has a higher power to weight ratio, the lift fan produces double the life for each pound of engine thrust, the ramp is steeper and the run up longer. Plus the fact that the carrier and aircraft were designed for each other.
Do not dismiss the fact that the ski-jump is like an additional “3/4 of a mile runway in the sky”
EMC2,
A 14-tonne AV8-B –> 1500+ feet, flat-deck, zero WOD.
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf
That’s 450+ meters.
With a 12 degree ski-jump I reckon it’d struggle on a 300m ship (can’t be bothered to do the maths but you only need Newtons equations of motion and the takeoff distance calcs from wiki).
Did it before on this site and I think the general rule-of-thumb was that a 12 degree ski-jump cuts the take-off by about a third. I don’t think Vince/Lusty and Ark were rigged for 30 knots just for a laugh
F-35A will be able to carry 2 B61 Nukes internally. Anyone know if the other versions get this too?
“Did it before on this site and I think the general rule-of-thumb was that a 12 degree ski-jump cuts the take-off by about a third. I don’t think Vince/Lusty and Ark were rigged for 30 knots just for a laugh”
The Ski-jump cuts the AV8B take off by 75%. Its basically worth 1000meters.
I would love to see a hybrid c-27j fanwing design fly off the cvf either turbo prop or jet.The fanwing design http://www.fanwing.com would help provide short take off and landing for the aircraft. The aircraft would be pressurized for AEW flights. it would have folding wings. The cargo area in the plane would fit an F35 engine. The aircraft would be able to land on the Queen Elizabeth Carriers and small airstrips like the c-27j, it would be great for commando raids. This aircraft would make the cvfs more capable than current aircraft carriers for tanker, transport and AEW roles and have great range. What do you think?
@Martin
“I could have compared the F14 instead of the F18 but it makes little difference the trend for improvement in STOVL aircraft is very clear and although you claim my argument is bollocks you offer no evidence.”
Possibly but it makes a huge difference in the logic of your argument. You argued based on comparative improvement. My point here is that if you are going to do that it is only fair to do it with the same class of aircraft on both sides. Otherwise I could take an A-4 and then an F-14 to make the other side of the same point you did. I don’t disagree with you that STOVL aircraft are improving necessarily but I think all aircraft are improving.
The F-35 is unique in that we know exactly what CATOBAR and STOVL cost us in terms of agility (9g or 7.5g against 7), range (33% essentially)and internal carrying capacity (54% more on A and C versions). There is additional mid-board pylon limit on the B (1,500 lbs vs 2,500 lbs) which becomes a big deal if you needed to carry fuel on the inboard external points and wanted to carry a ranged weapon like a JASSM or Storm Shadow.
So we pretty much know that as of today in the same airframe with the same engine what kind of performance issues we are looking at. How it plays out in reality really depends on the situation. Internally we know the breakdown (2,000 vs 1,000 pound bombs, range difference). If we wanted to launch say a heavy strike and assume range is not an issue for either model we still have differences. I could outfit and F-35C with 2 JSOW and 4 JASSM if I wanted to. I can only outfit F-35B with two of any of the weapons. JSOW won’t fit externally and is too heavy to carry on the midboard pylon. Now this does not make a huge difference in one aircraft it starts to add up really quickly across say a squadron worth when it comes to the amount of hurt that I can do.
Range wise that played in to. If I need to carry extra gas to get where I am going I can carry two bags with the F-35C and still carry two JASSM and two JSOW. With the B I may not be able to fly the mission at all because I have to carry my JASSM where the gas has to go if I need it.
Again, I admit these are specific scenarios but they are real-world examples of the impact of STOVL on aircraft performance. How do you quantify it? That is a great question. We can put numbers on the range figure and the payload figures. But there will be some missions the B flat can’t do that the C can and there really are not missions that go the other way in that regard.
I also think the above is a good illustration of the risk of working primarily with the USMC on an aircraft. That mid-board pylon restriction is not a big deal to them. If they hang gas bags on their aircraft they can still carry most close air support weapons on the lower capacity mid-board pylon. They are not in the business of heavy strike so sacrificing that capacity (and internal JSOW capacity) was not a big deal for them but it may well be a big deal to a nation viewing the F-35B as its primary strike aircraft.
Here is a good document on the ranges of the aircraft.
https://ex.democracydata.com/243F8CB0E13C119CAB73A9CD64F5174B71BBB8B2/f50a71a1-ce02-41ad-aad9-5d98e0cc798e.pdf
The ranges are 600 NM and 450 NM for the two variants.
“Again if you read the article the engine power is in relation to bring back weight. More Thrust allows the B version to bring back more weight as it does not rely on aerodynamic lift. The F35C does rely on aerodynamic lift and already has an incredibly high landing speed. More thrust will not help it bring back more stores. It’s something called the laws of physics.”
It will improve bring back weight for the B but it probably is never going to match the C in that field. I agree it will help a bit assuming they can translate that power into the lift fan. Did not associate it that closely with bring back weight so fair enough on that point.
On the UAV issues. I would argue that in general most MALE UAV’s are not hugely useful in a maritime setting. They have great loiter time but limited range ability. You might be able to get a predator or mantis off of a large carrier but I am not sure it would be operationally useful in that context. I am dubious at best about the subject due to the fragile nature of the things. They have very light landing gear and are not structurally strong in general. They generally don’t have the weight margins for stronger such fittings either.
As for Mantis and X-47 I would say neither is operational in any real sense yet. They are in testing essentially. I would not consider either Matins or X-47 operational until they are put into squadron service somewhere.
I think the main problem for the UK with UAV’s on carriers is encapsulated with the X-47 though. I think you need specialized UAV’s to really make carrier use worthwhile. You need higher speed, and more robust construction for carrier based UAV’s. I would probably go so far as to say that really only UCAV’s make sense on carriers. Otherwise you are almost always better off using a HALE with global reach for recon.
The downside for the UK of going with STOVL in regards to UAV’s is that the biggest developer of at sea UAV’s is going to be the USN, which will develop them for CATOBAR. More than that the UK’s natural UAV partner, France, would want CATOBAR compatible UAV’s as well if they went down that path.
It is not something that can’t be worked around, but it is an issue to be considered and in my view on of the major downsides of the decision to revert back to STOVL.
I think you have a few decent points but it seems to me that they got lost in the article. The article explicitly ends in a “junk measuring contest” with the USN carrier concepts. I think had the article been arranged around STOVL being more than good enough for 90% of the situations the UK might face then it would hold together better. As it is you reach in a lot of places for points that are really hard to back up.
On the UCAV point, my thinking is exactly the opposite. Initial UAV ideas were for a cheap, expendable vehicle for reconnisance, the current practice of arming UAVs is part of “mission creep” where people try to justify buying these things by adding capability to outmatch the competition. Unfortunately, this also drove up costs to the point where “cheap and expendable” went out the window.
Seriously speaking, if you were flying combat off a carrier, wouldn’t the carrier already come with fighters massively more capable than a propellor driven RC plane writ big? Or a Tomahawk missile for deep strikes from other ships in the fleet? Admittedly, Predators work well for killing terrorists with limited collateral damage, but is this the proper use for a carrier? Having a MALE/HALE really suits the strategic nature of a carrier better than a CUAV 2nd tier fighter.
UAVs for escorts on the other hand might best be micro-UAVs for semi-persistant surveillance. One of the lessons learned in the Aden Gulf piracy patrols and the Iraqi Reconstruction is that too big an overview was not as helpful as close range observation as you can’t see someone making small scale threatening actions (like shoving an AK under a blanket, shoving mines off the back of a speedboat etc). A micro would be more useful for the duties they are usually tasked with.