New British Carriers, cutbacks and CATOBAR vs STOVL

[Abraham Gubler]

The F-35C will not have an autonomous landing system and will not offer improved landing success rates compared to legacy aircraft. So why is it that the F-35 project office is claiming the F-35C will need less than ½ to 1/3 the reserve fuel margin as legacy aircraft. To make exaggerated claims about radius of action. People in the fleet are not buying this crap but I’m sure Thales is a less discerning imbiber of dodgy facts. Especially when it helps them sell a product.

All systems the RN has no plans or money to buy. All capabilities that can be provided by VTOL systems. The Merlin is load/range competitive with the Codbird.

As to cross decking it is the USN that gains all the advantage from dropping in on a RN CATOBAR carrier: a wet bar!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

The F-35B has a design flight endurance 35% less than the F-35C. Yet for a CATOBAR carrier landing typical USN carrier landing margins require at least 25% fuel before landing. Which because aircraft burn more fuel taking off and climbing at the start of their mission this reserve is likely to see an equalisation of range. I can’t make completely accurate predictions because that data is not publically available. But for anyone other than an irrational pedant this should be acceptable. Please note that this is USN standards in which each carrier is abundantly provided with IFR tankers. The RN has no plan or apparent opportunity for an IFR capability for their future CATOBAR force.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

No I didn’t. I said that all of these capabilities can be provided by helicopters and if one bypasses you pathetic attempt at trolling:

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

You concur that there is such a thing as helo based AEW. And in RN service for that. As for the difference in quality these things are apples and oranges.

The E-2D can provide terminal over the horizon guidance for SM-6 missiles but what use is this capability for the RN without SM-6s? The E-2 has more fighter controllers onboard than the Sea King AEW but by using a data link the Sea King links fighters and its radar picture with fighter controllers in the ship. Which is kind of what the E-2 does via AEGIS CEC.

Its not as simple as one is better than the other. And frankly despite the E-2s bigger and better radar antenna does this really mean the RN should go without a carrier for 10 years and slash its sortie capability when it gets one back? I don’t think so.

 

[JFC Fuller]

No I didn’t. I said that all of these capabilities can be provided by helicopters and if one bypasses you pathetic attempt at trolling:

In no way was [edit - deleted user - Admin] trolling.

The E-2D can provide terminal over the horizon guidance for SM-6 missiles but what use is this capability for the RN without SM-6s?

The RN has a standing requirement for CEC for the Type 45 destroyers. The capability has been pushed back at least twice but it is still a standing requirement.

and slash its sortie capability

Slash is an excessive word for the reduction in sortie rates, especially when UK strike packages now rarely if ever exceed 4 aircraft and the ships themselves are unlikely to ever carry many more than 30 aircraft with standard configuration being less.

The F-35B has a design flight endurance 35% less than the F-35C. Yet for a CATOBAR carrier landing typical USN carrier landing margins require at least 25% fuel before landing

Wrong way of looking at it. Fuel reserves are not determined by an arbitrary percentage, rather a certain amount is required for a certain specified requirement for loiter and go around. Consequently an aircraft with a larger fuel load and greater endurance will require a lower percentage. Given the dramatically greater range the F-35 has over early model Hornets (courtesy in large part to its greater fuel load) the claimed smaller reserve fuel margins are entirely believable.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Oh dear, it's getting a bit 'unnecessary' here.

I don't want to fan any flames, but I do have a genuine question that I hope can be answered. It is what this forum is about!

Regarding the B/C STOVL/CTOL etc., one would assume that the larger wing/lower span loading of the C will improve cruise efficiency, and extend range.

But it doesn’t. It causes higher drag and therefore higher fuel burn at cruise speed/altitude. Would also detract from acceleration and speed for engine setting.

Regarding the F-35C wing adding drag, no doubt it does in high speed flight (i.e. at low lift coefficients/wave drag present). But does it add drag in cruise, at say Mach 0.8 or below (moderate lift coefficients, no wave drag)? The increased span should reduce induced drag, and by quite a bit, offsetting the additional friction drag of the larger area, reducing fuel burn enough to offset the additional weight of the bigger wing. If this is not the case, is there a link to explain this?

I can't find one (except a Virgina Tech PDF and an Ares blog from 2007, neither of which say induced drag in cruise goes up). I ask because this would be a huge and fundamental flaw in the design of the C!

EDIT: Regarding -

and slash its sortie capability

Slash is an excessive word for the reduction in sortie rates, especially when UK strike packages now rarely if ever exceed 4 aircraft and the ships themselves are unlikely to ever carry many more than 30 aircraft with standard configuration being less.

The first day of the Falklands War comes to mind. Twenty aircraft Sea Harrier fleet, 12 aircraft on a strike mission, quick role change to air-to-air afterwards to counter Argentine counter-air missions. A prolonged recovery/launch cycle could have turned out differently. STOVL sped things up.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The first day of the Falklands War comes to mind. Twenty aircraft Sea Harrier fleet, 12 aircraft on a strike mission, quick role change to air-to-air afterwards to counter Argentine counter-air missions. A prolonged recovery/launch cycle could have turned out differently. STOVL sped things up.

Over such small numbers of aircraft the cumulative time difference will be relatively limited.

The original STOVL requirement was for a maximum launch rate of 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and a recovery rate of 24 aircraft in 24 minutes, Charles de Gaul is claimed to be able to manage launch one aircraft every 30 seconds or handle a mass landing of 20 aircraft in 12 minutes.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Oh dear, it's getting a bit 'unnecessary' here.

I don't want to fan any flames, but I do have a genuine question that I hope can be answered. It is what this forum is about!

Unfortunately there are firebugs about who love to spread flames as they crash and burn.

Regarding the F-35C wing adding drag, no doubt it does in high speed flight (i.e. at low lift coefficients/wave drag present). But does it add drag in cruise, at say Mach 0.8 or below (moderate lift coefficients, no wave drag)? The increased span should reduce induced drag, and by quite a bit, offsetting the additional friction drag of the larger area, reducing fuel burn enough to offset the additional weight of the bigger wing. If this is not the case, is there a link to explain this?

I think you may be right on this. My reasoning for arguing that the bigger wing cause a higher rate of fuel burn was because this was what I was told by someone who should have been in the know. But there is never any shortage of ignorance and misinformation amongst apparent subject matter experts.

But in trying to validate this in response to your post without access to any aerodynamic information I did a quick internal fuel/range comparison. The F-35C carries 6% more fuel than the F-35A yet has 17% more range (design figures). So it has to get an aerodynamic advantage to achieve that (especially as it has lower thrust to weight).

 

[Mike Pryce]

Thanks for your answer Abraham. The whole calculation of drag process can get quite complicated - I know two very experienced design teams who could not agree on it but it would be a surprise to see such an increase in span having a detrimental effect in induced drag.

And thanks for your comments too, Lawrence. Regarding the sortie rates, it's not just that STOVL aircraft can land/take-off more rapidly, but that they do not need the ship to have such high WOD demands, that they can (in the Harrier family at least) 'back taxi' on deck, saving a lot of deck handling time etc. It was the knowledge that they can do all these things fast that allowed Sandy Woodward to launch a strike with limited resources, knowing they could be ready for the counter-strike. A few minutes can make a big difference in such circumstances.

Anyway, STOVL at sea is fascinating stuff (much more than the royal wedding!) so please do keep contributing, but do please keep it good natured (unlike most royal marriages!).

 

[JFC Fuller]

And thanks for your comments too, Lawrence. Regarding the sortie rates, it's not just that STOVL aircraft can land/take-off more rapidly, but that they do not need the ship to have such high WOD demands, that they can (in the Harrier family at least) 'back taxi' on deck, saving a lot of deck handling time etc. It was the knowledge that they can do all these things fast that allowed Sandy Woodward to launch a strike with limited resources, knowing they could be ready for the counter-strike. A few minutes can make a big difference in such circumstances.

And thank you to you to Harrier, its good to have knowledgeable people such as yourself here. A few minutes can make a difference, but they should not be overrated, and there is not as much in it as some like to claim. A lot of the Harriers attributes were not intrinsic to its STOVL but either to the manner in which STOVL was applied to the design or to other characteristics of the aircraft. Many of these will not be present on the F-35B which is a completely different class of aircraft.

I understood that back-taxiing was only ever cleared for the SHAR and not for GR family? Am I wrong on that?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Well, if a Super Etendard pops up during those few minutes...!

Of course, the Harrier has some unique abilities that other STOVL aircraft don't (it works, for starters, which most didn't), but not relying on cats and traps also helps - a ski-jump has very few failure modes. I did watch Top Gun the other night, and recall that the cats were 'out' at the end. 20 minutes to fix, they said, and here come the MiG 28s, with Exocets!

As far as I know, it wasn't the Sea Harrier that was qualified to back taxi, but its pilots. I guess 'crab' pilots were not trusted to do so, maybe after one landed with a wheel in the catwalk during the Falklands War. Inter-service rivalry shaping deck ops? It would not surprise me!

 

[JFC Fuller]

Well, if a Super Etendard pops up during those few minutes...!

Of course, the Harrier had some unique abilities that other STOVL aircraft don't (it works, for starters, which most didn't), but not relying on cats and traps also helps - a ski-jump has very few failure modes. I did watch Top Gun the other night, and recall that the cats were 'out' at the end. 20 minutes to fix, they said, and here come the MiG 28s, with Exocets!

Oh there is certainly a certain simplicity factor there, no denying that. In fact the entire Harrier/Ski Jump thing was simple, a light simple (simple is a relative term) aircraft powering itself of a ramp- F-35B is not as simple. Of course the question is always, does that simplicity out weigh the disadvantages for large carriers- and the answer so far seems to be, no. That is not to say that there is no place for STOVL though, the USMC, Italians and Spanish will continue to get great use out of the concept!

And Mig-28's are especially scary because they CAN do a negative 4G push over

 

[uk 75]

Gentlemen Your wide ranging discussion of the qualities of Harriers and F35 has been fascinating. But it does not alter the following- In 1997 the uk still had a viable light carrier force with relevant aircraft. 14 years and many millions of pounds later we do not. I am still not persuaded that 2 carriers and whatever small quantity of jsfs or other stuff they will carry is worth the cost. Even the us is now looking again at the number and composition of its carrier forces. The rn should do so again.

 

[SteveO]

In my opinion the RN has been setting itself up to fail on carrier aviation ever since the decision to buy HMS Ocean as a low cost Aviation Support Ship.

What they should have done was start a new class which fixed the shortcomings of the Invincible class as far as Harrier/STOVL operations go and also provide the Commando carrier role by simply changing the air group and crew.

A class of at least 4 ships could have provided Ocean's role then replaced Fearless, Intrepid and the Invincible's. The LPD role could have been provided by a Bay class+

 

[SteveO]

Gentlemen Your wide ranging discussion of the qualities of Harriers and F35 has been fascinating. But it does not alter the following- In 1997 the uk still had a viable light carrier force with relevant aircraft. 14 years and many millions of pounds later we do not. I am still not persuaded that 2 carriers and whatever small quantity of jsfs or other stuff they will carry is worth the cost. Even the us is now looking again at the number and composition of its carrier forces. The rn should do so again.

IMO the CVF and JSF programs are a marriage made in hell. That being said, if we're stuck with them contractually and can't stomach throwing away the billions invested in them we might as well get our money's worth out of them and retire some land based squadron's when F-35C's go operational on HMS QE and PoW.

Alternatively we could turn the carriers into Arsenal ships ;D

 

[Grey Havoc]

Alternatively we could turn the carriers into Arsenal ships ;D

Not the craziest idea I've heard this decade.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Alternatively we could turn the carriers into Arsenal ships ;D

Not the craziest idea I've heard this decade.

Well, yes, but that's a pretty low bar to set when you consider some of the ideas out there.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Alternatively we could turn the carriers into Arsenal ships

Arsenal? ??? Manchester United would be better. ;D

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic unpleasantness removed. Are you all five years old? This is no more than playground name-calling lightly dressed up.

If you disagree with someone, fine, debate and dissent are both healthy, but there is no need to do it in a nasty way.

Next person to make a personal dig or nasty comment in this vein will get banned.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wrong way of looking at it. Fuel reserves are not determined by an arbitrary percentage, rather a certain amount is required for a certain specified requirement for loiter and go around. Consequently an aircraft with a larger fuel load and greater endurance will require a lower percentage. Given the dramatically greater range the F-35 has over early model Hornets (courtesy in large part to its greater fuel load) the claimed smaller reserve fuel margins are entirely believable.

The fuel reserve figure is not arbitrary. The USN baseline standard for reserves is 5% of maximum internal fuel and 20 minutes flying time. For an aircraft with the fuel load and endurance of the F-35C this combination comes in at about 15-20% of internal fuel.

But that is standard recovery after weapons expenditure and in the pleasant conditions of the American seaboard. Add in weapons retention, hot Persian Gulf air and additional safety margins often added by commanders and you see where the 25% comes from. For an aircraft with a lower cycle time like the Hornet and Super Hornet the landing reserve is even higher.

The 5-10% margins promoted by the F-35 Project Office are paper figures for promoting the concept that the aircraft brings lots of extra range capability to the Navy’s Tacair to garner congressional support. It’s what they’ve got to spin to get the money to pay for the planes which is all based around a 600 NM strike radius requirement. It would appear the UK Government has leveraged this political argument to provide an apparent excuse for their massive cuts to carrier capability.

Slash is an excessive word for the reduction in sortie rates, especially when UK strike packages now rarely if ever exceed 4 aircraft and the ships themselves are unlikely to ever carry many more than 30 aircraft with standard configuration being less.

Slash is entirely accurate. All things being equal between two CVFs, one with F-35Bs and the other with F-35Cs will see the following discrepancies in sortie generation in a single 24 hour period:

F-35C air wing: Within a 14 hours flying period can launch 6 sequential packages around 2 hours apart each of 18 aircraft.

F-35B air wing: Within a 24 hours flying period can launch 144 missions of any number and time separation as long as each package does not exceed 36 aircraft

Apart from the 25% reduction in total sorties the F-35C is limited in its overall flight operations time by flight deck crew and mechanical fatigue and must launch and recover in cycles to sustain flight operations on a crowed CATOBAR deck. The F-35B carrier can launch at any time of the day and any number of aircraft from one to 36 and still accommodate flexible recoveries and regeneration of sorties.

This is the advantage STVOL brings to a carrier. The ability to operate a flight deck while simultaneously launching, recovering and regenerating aircraft without re-spoting. And to do so for extended periods of times due to much lower crew and mechanical demands.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Alternatively we could turn the carriers into Arsenal ships

Arsenal? ??? Manchester United would be better. ;D

HMS Manchester United. ;D

 

[SteveO]

Alternatively we could turn the carriers into Arsenal ships

Arsenal? ??? Manchester United would be better. ;D

HMS Manchester United. ;D

How about cruise missiles in bow vertical launch cells, a football pitch amidships and ICBMs at the stern? Might be able to squeeze in a couple of tennis courts on the hanger deck

 

[Abraham Gubler]

[edit - deleted post - Admin]


No it doesn’t. For two key reasons. One the chance of a landing failure or deck unavailability for STOVL is far, far lower than CATOBAR. So the risk margin can be jettisoned in war time. There is no capacity to do this in CATOBAR because of the risk of bolting. STOVL jets don’t do bolters.

Further even if you have a wave off for STOVL the circuit for a go around is much, much shorter (<25%). The CATOBAR has to add the additional safety margin to four times the reserve. That is of course if you have tankers. What the RN is going to do without on hand IFR assets when away from the shore is unknown. That is if they would actually fly under such circumstances.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

The RN has proved this on multiple occasions via deck size to aircraft. 12 Harriers off an Invincible is roughly equal to 36 F-35Bs off a CVF. It is very demanding but inherently has much less work than the CATOBAR carrier. Further much less deck space and time is required to be freed for landing or takeoff. Relived of the burden of cyclic operations (which USN carriers are flying right now around the world) and the physical limitations of catapults and arrestors provides much better flexibility for the STOVL carrier.

Obviously the RN was not going to launch 36 F-35Bs fly a mission, land them all then regenerate and then launch another mission and so on non stop for day after day. That is impossible and the aircraft doesn’t have the sortie generation rate to support it and I certainly didn’t say or imply this in my previous post. But as I said before with a STVOL carrier you have the flexibility to say launch a 36 strong package and then launch a four plane package every hour for the rest of the day (or other variations of the mix). Something a CATOBAR carrier just could not do because it does not have the crew to support continuous flight deck operations.

All of my opinions expressed here have been shaped on carriers talking to senior RN and USN officers and crew. STOVL is acknowledge by all and sundry as a far more efficient means of operating naval aircraft. Just that the types of naval aircraft have been limited in the past. F-35 addresses this core issue, though many would argue the Sea Harrier proved this as well.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The fuel reserve figure is not arbitrary. The USN baseline standard for reserves is 5% of maximum internal fuel and 20 minutes flying time. For an aircraft with the fuel load and endurance of the F-35C this combination comes in at about 15-20% of internal fuel.

But that is standard recovery after weapons expenditure and in the pleasant conditions of the American seaboard. Add in weapons retention, hot Persian Gulf air and additional safety margins often added by commanders and you see where the 25% comes from. For an aircraft with a lower cycle time like the Hornet and Super Hornet the landing reserve is even higher.

The 5-10% margins promoted by the F-35 Project Office are paper figures for promoting the concept that the aircraft brings lots of extra range capability to the Navy’s Tacair to garner congressional support. It’s what they’ve got to spin to get the money to pay for the planes which is all based around a 600 NM strike radius requirement. It would appear the UK Government has leveraged this political argument to provide an apparent excuse for their massive cuts to carrier capability.

That is purely your opinion and you have no evidence for it. The F-35 has a substantially higher fuel load than legacy types which will allow it to operate with a lower reserve, the range advantage of the F-35C over the B even when operating of carrier decks is very real for simple reason it carries 30%+ more fuel over the latter.

Slash is entirely accurate. All things being equal between two CVFs, one with F-35Bs and the other with F-35Cs will see the following discrepancies in sortie generation in a single 24 hour period:

F-35C air wing: Within a 14 hours flying period can launch 6 sequential packages around 2 hours apart each of 18 aircraft.

F-35B air wing: Within a 24 hours flying period can launch 144 missions of any number and time separation as long as each package does not exceed 36 aircraft

Apart from the 25% reduction in total sorties the F-35C is limited in its overall flight operations time by flight deck crew and mechanical fatigue and must launch and recover in cycles to sustain flight operations on a crowed CATOBAR deck. The F-35B carrier can launch at any time of the day and any number of aircraft from one to 36 and still accommodate flexible recoveries and regeneration of sorties.

This is the advantage STVOL brings to a carrier. The ability to operate a flight deck while simultaneously launching, recovering and regenerating aircraft without re-spoting. And to do so for extended periods of times due to much lower crew and mechanical demands.

No, slash is pure hyperbole, you have not explained those numbers and there is no 25% reduction. And your descriptions make no sense as for some reason you have decided that F-35C launches have to be two hours apart and F-35B's can take -off whenever they want. The USN very very rarely launches and recovers simultaneously, in fact they primarily intertwine the two operations which gives a continual flow of aircraft without the much overhyped simultaneous launch and recover capability.

And the notion that the F-35B will not result in mechanical and deck crew fatigue is just ridiculous.

And the 144 number is wrong anyway, CVF 24 hour sortie generation rate 110.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That is purely your opinion and you have no evidence for it.

Really? How about the SAC of various naval aircraft?

The F-35 has a substantially higher fuel load than legacy types which will allow it to operate with a lower reserve,

Compare these carrier aircraft total fuel and mission times (all armed missions):

A-6E: 24,000 lbs / 4.5 hours
F-14D: 20,000lbs / 2.5 hours
F-35C: 19,600 lbs / 2.75 hours
F/A-18E: 18,900 /2 hours
A-7E: 10,000 lbs / 2.5 hours

Doesn’t quite match your statement.

the range advantage of the F-35C over the B even when operating of carrier decks is very real for simple reason it carries 30%+ more fuel over the latter.

Sure if they are flying one way missions. But the F-35C is generally assumed to want to land back on the carrier and to do that it needs a large fuel reserve. And then of course the STOVL carrier doesn’t need to fly cyclic operations or hunt wind over deck like a CATOBAR carrier. So it has a lot more freedom to manoeuvre and can remain closer to any potential target for launching strikes.

No, slash is pure hyperbole, you have not explained those numbers and there is no 25% reduction.

Well I can sit down and write a book explaining to you carrier operations and maybe you’re understand what I’ve said. However I am unwilling to do that so your rejection of my data can remain a testament to the futility of having a debate between an informed and uniformed participant on a highly technical and complex matter.

And your descriptions make no sense as for some reason you have decided that F-35C launches have to be two hours apart and F-35B's can take -off whenever they want. The USN very very rarely launches and recovers simultaneously, in fact they primarily intertwine the two operations which gives a continual flow of aircraft without the much overhyped simultaneous launch and recover capability.

It’s called cyclic operations. BTW I have explained this and as have others on this forum. I even provided a link earlier on to another thread. So don't let any of that stop you find about what you are claiming to talk about.

And the notion that the F-35B will not result in mechanical and deck crew fatigue is just ridiculous.

Well they certainly won’t have any problems with their arrestor gear and catapults… But of course this is all about cyclic operations.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Compare these carrier aircraft total fuel and mission times (all armed missions):

A-6E: 24,000 lbs / 4.5 hours
F-14D: 20,000lbs / 2.5 hours
F-35C: 19,600 lbs / 2.75 hours
F/A-18E: 18,900 /2 hours
A-7E: 10,000 lbs / 2.5 hours

Doesn’t quite match your statement.

Oh dear, I note you decided not to include the early model hornets and failed to mention range/loiter time. Mission time not being useful in this case because it covers such disparate flight regimes. Fuel efficiency during loiter and go round is what counts.

Sure if they are flying one way missions. But the F-35C is generally assumed to want to land back on the carrier and to do that it needs a large fuel reserve. And then of course the STOVL carrier doesn’t need to fly cyclic operations or hunt wind over deck like a CATOBAR carrier. So it has a lot more freedom to manoeuvre and can remain closer to any potential target for launching strikes.

Erm no, A CTOL aircraft carrier does not just launch all its aircraft and then wait to recover them, it can switch from launch to recovery in a matter of minutes. And as has been pointed out multiple times the 30%+ greater fuel load of the C more than makes up for any additional reserve required.

Well I can sit down and write a book explaining to you carrier operations and maybe you’re understand what I’ve said. However I am unwilling to do that so your rejection of my data can remain a testament to the futility of having a debate between an informed and uniformed participant on a highly technical and complex matter.

You have not provided data, just your opinion, which you have not backed up.

It’s called cyclic operations. Look it up. BTW I have explained this and as have others on this forum. I even provided a link earlier on to another thread. So don't let any of that stop you find about what you are claiming to talk about.

It might be called that, but it does not mean a vessel launches 18 aircraft then spends two hours doing nothing before deciding to recover them. Again, a CTOL vessel can very rapidly switch from launch to recovery and a basic glance at USN operations sees this happening all the time.

Well they certainly won’t have any problems with their arrestor gear and catapults… But of course this is all about cyclic operations. Which as I said before you need to learn about before this discussion can be anything other than a joke.

And? They may have problems with the aircraft, with the lifts, with the deck management, with the aviation fuel and munitions supply etc, etc. Removing the cats only removes one point of failure. And you have still not explained why a CTOL carrier can only do this:

Within a 14 hours flying period can launch 6 sequential packages around 2 hours apart each of 18 aircraft

whilst a STOVL carrier can apparently launch aircraft whenever it wants.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

This is a fundamentally flawed argument because it presumes the STOVL flight deck is operated alike the CATOBAR flight deck. The big difference for recovery is that the landing area is very small and can be kept clear while the rest of the flight deck is utilised for regenerating aircraft. On the CVF this is taken to a new level with the landing area being separate to the takeoff area. And then 50% of the flight deck is totally uneeded for takeoff and landing. And it is arranged in a very convenient trilateral way which allows easy movement between each area.

This is very different to a CATOBAR carrier which when operating a full air wing can only do these three things at one time: launch, recover and regenerate and never any together. Hence the demand for cyclic operations.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

Would be nice but it’s not a funded project. How about you have your buddy system for F-35C and I can have a V-22 AEW&C? Fair trade for argument purposes?

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

Sure they are but if each one of those wave offs results in an aircraft loss because you want to fly without a recovery reserve they will quickly add up. Plus factor in battle damage and pilot exhaustion that happens in REAL wartime situations (like the Falklands rather than OIF and the like) and the landing issue because much more prevalent. Which is why the USN still keeps the VietNam War book open despite the much more benign campaigns of recent years.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

The big deck will actually make it a lot easier. And yes the carrier can respot a lot of aircraft between cycles but they can’t do this 24-7.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

Give me a break. This is a chat room. I shouldn’t be expected to have to fully detail every possible permutation while making a generalised point.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

I don’t recall the RN having that luxury at the Falklands? Or le Royal when it was by itself in the Tonkin Gulf.

[edit - deleted post - Admin]

I have no personal or national investment in either carrier model and it is clear to me that STOVL has a range of significant advantages. That is except a wire trap and a cat shot is a very cool thing. So to is standing beside the flight deck watching a 30 tonne fighter zoom by 2-4m from your nose.

As to the USN they will not be operating catapults and arrestor gear by the end of this century. Their long, long term plans are to do away with them. Please note I did not mention STOVL in this last paragraph.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Oh dear, I note you decided not to include the early model hornets and failed to mention range/loiter time.

Well I don’t have the SAC for a C/D Hornet. Do you? Does anyone on this forum? I would like to have one. But this isn't a conspiracy. I'm not hiding Obama's real birth certificate in the form of C/D Hornet flying data.

Mission time not being useful in this case because it covers such disparate flight regimes. Fuel efficiency during loiter and go round is what counts.

Well not in this case as I chose all hi-hi efficient cruise missions. But now you are talking about fuel efficiency? When before you were talking about fuel fraction…

The fundamental fact is that the radius information provided by the F-35 PO about the F-35C does not appear to include an adequate landing reserve. It doesn’t look like it has even the baseline 20 minutes +5% (a total of 20-25% of fuel) not to mention a higher reserve for tougher conditions. On the other hand the F-35B can get away with a much lower reserve because it stops before it lands.

Then you factor into this the STOVL carriers higher degree of freedom of manoeuvre so its likely to be 100NM or more closer to the coast line and you start to see that the difference in strike range is illusory. As to the rest of it there is no point responding because you have written stuff with no connection to the nature of cyclic operations.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Well not in this case as I chose all hi-hi efficient cruise missions. But now you are talking about fuel efficiency? When before you were talking about fuel fraction…

Which are entirely related issues.

The fundamental fact is that the radius information provided by the F-35 PO about the F-35C does not appear to include an adequate landing reserve. It doesn’t look like it has even the baseline 20 minutes +5% (a total of 20-25% of fuel) not to mention a higher reserve for tougher conditions. On the other hand the F-35B can get away with a much lower reserve because it stops before it lands.

No, the fact is that you dispute it, not that it leaves an insufficient reserve. and you have not proven in anyway that your claim is correct.

Then you factor into this the STOVL carriers higher degree of freedom of manoeuvre so its likely to be 100NM or more closer to the coast line and you start to see that the difference in strike range is illusory. As to the rest of it there is no point responding because you have written stuff with no connection to the nature of cyclic operations.

No again, 100nm is a figure that you have randomly plucked out of thin air (Just like your arbitrary 25% fuel reserve), carrier location being determined by a multiplicity of factors ranging from geography, sea lanes, air space congestion, threat environment etc.

And the reason you wont respond to the rest of my post is because you can not, you made a odd claim based on your opinion and can not back it up.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No, the fact is that you dispute it, not that it leaves an insufficient reserve. and you have not proven in anyway that your claim is correct.

I doubt I could prove to you that the earth is round.

No again, 100nm is a figure that you have randomly plucked out of thin air (Just like your arbitrary 25% fuel reserve), carrier location being determined by a multiplicity of factors ranging from geography, sea lanes, air space congestion, threat environment etc.

Neither are random figures. I explained the 25% in great detail. As to 100 NM that has a lot to do with how far a ship can advance, launch and recover a strike package and then retreat in a night period. Now before you launch a rebuttal about how a CATOBAR carrier can do that as well ask yourself how will it be able to do so while launching and recovering its CAP if the direction of advance (towards the target) is away from the direction of the wind?

If you want to discuss geography and so on then you are going to have to cover quite a few permutations. I will stick to a generalised deep ocean to keep my responses to under 5,000 words each. The deep ocean being where all the carriers will be in a war rather than navigating the inner Greek Islands or whatever.

And the reason you wont respond to the rest of my post is because you can not, you made a odd claim based on your opinion and can not back it up.

Far from it. Its just I don’t want to have to write 2,000 words just to explain to you the basics. For example you made a big deal about how a CATOBAR can launch a package and then recover another one straight away and this was different to what I was talking about. This is a basic element of cyclic operations, you launch which clears the deck and then you recover. But ask yourself this. How quickly can a CATOBAR carrier launch another package after a recovery? Now you might start understanding what cycles mean.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I doubt I could prove to you that the earth is round.

You are not being asked to prove the world is round, you are being asked to prove your assertion that the F-35C range advantage is illusory despite it being 30%+ and you have pointedly failed to do it.

Neither are random figures. I explained the 25% in great detail. As to 100 NM that has a lot to do with how far a ship can advance, launch and recover a strike package and then retreat in a night period. Now before you launch a rebuttal about how a CATOBAR carrier can do that as well ask yourself how will it be able to do so while launching and recovering its CAP if the direction of advance (towards the target) is away from the direction of the wind?

Both are not even random figures, they are pure fiction invented by you and completely devoid of any context. That is why you are arguing against officially claimed numbers and claiming 100nm without any context. Of course a CTOL carrier can do it, and they do. The ship maneuvering is more complex but it is still possible and undertaken. Not to mention the fact that air speed over the deck is a function of ship speed as much as wind speed and direction as well as aircraft weight (dependent on payload) and catapult strength (being improved through the adoption of EMALS). And before you start ranting about crew size increases one of the advantages of EMALS is that it will produce a 30% reduction in the number of personnel required to operate/maintain the catapults.

If you want to discuss geography and so on then you are going to have to cover quite a few permutations. I will stick to a generalised deep ocean to keep my responses to under 5,000 words each. The deep ocean being where all the carriers will be in a war rather than navigating the inner Greek Islands or whatever.

Which is why your response is meaningless, and it is not just geography that is a defining factor. Threat environment, aircraft attack direction, etc, etc. In fact one might find oneself having to locate ones carrier 100+nm away from the coast anyway if ones opponent has released untethered sea mines into the sea (Iraq 1990) as an example. The additional range provided by the F-35C offers far greater flexibility for carrier strike. In fact the Persian Gulf is the perfect example of 2 things. Firstly the 100NM number is nonsense as seen by even a cursory glance at USN operations in the Persian Gulf show (it is barely over 100NM wide and as an example Carrier Operating Area 4 is just 75-mile by 25-mile [and only 40 miles from the Iranian city of Bushehr] and the USN had 3 simultaneous operating areas in the Gulf in GW1) and secondly that the additional range of the aircraft would have been helpful in undertaking operations prior to the move further up the Gulf and in the strikes launched from the Med. And lets not forget carrier operations off Vietnam where Enterprise, on at least one occasion, sailed to within 30nm of Haiphong. The USN started examining CTOL carrier operations in confined waters in the 1980s referencing the Norwegian fjords and the Aleutian Islands. The 100 NM figure was invented by you and is completely false.

Far from it. Its just I don’t want to have to write 2,000 words just to explain to you the basics. For example you made a big deal about how a CATOBAR can launch a package and then recover another one straight away and this was different to what I was talking about. This is a basic element of cyclic operations, you launch which clears the deck and then you recover. But ask yourself this. How quickly can a CATOBAR carrier launch another package after a recovery? Now you might start understanding what cycles mean.

Lol, I know exactly what cycles mean, the USN does it everyday and mysteriously they can do so much more than launch 18 aircraft then wait 2 hours before launching another 18 if the situation requires. They retain the option of flex decking (reducing sortie generation rate to lower the number of aircraft on deck and thus keep both the launch and take-off areas clear) and cycles can be reduced by reducing the size of the package and fully upscaled to an Alpha operation (launch everything available) if required. Given that an RN carrier is unlikely to even have 18 F-35C's on board it is somewhat unlikely that it will operate in cycles of 18.

 

[uk 75]

Based on the intensity of the continuing discussion of the merits of stovl versus catobar the uk seems to be right to hedge its bets until the us decides the fate of the Marine version. If it goes ahead we can always get a batch for the non catobar ship. If the us limits itself to catobar aircraft-f18s or 35s the rn can sell or convert the non catobar ship. We also need to see if us uav developments open up new options. Oh and gentlemen keep calm we are not in the War Room...

 

[Mike Pryce]

To add some thoughts, without inflaming the thread, I attach a paper and link that covers ship/aircraft ops.

The US/UK cost comparison (p.63 or p.7 to PDF reader) gives an idea of how differences between STOVL and CTOL extend beyond deck ops.

Link:
http://acquisitionresearch.net/_files/FY2009/NPS-AM-09-014.pdf

I've done more work in this since, and have modified some views. And apologies for the odd typo or two (I know the Sea Harrier was ordered in 1975, but 1978 crept in for first flight and ordering, but as a historian I feel duly embarrassed!).

Overall though, I'd say it's a complex issue and the 'right' answer depends on a lot of things - more than in the paper, or in the thread so far. And mostly the 'right' answer depends on not doing the 'wrong' thing on the day, in the face of the enemy!

 

[JFC Fuller]

Overall though, I'd say it's a complex issue and the 'right' answer depends on a lot of things - more than in the paper, or in the thread so far. And mostly the 'right' answer depends on not doing the 'wrong' thing on the day, in the face of the enemy!

Exactly! Nobody is questioning that STOVL has advantages, as I said earlier in the thread, I have no doubt that the USMC, Italians, Spanish and probably others will continue to get plenty of use out of STOVL fixed wing aircraft. But given the ships the UK is acquiring and what they want to do with them I feel they have finally made the right decision.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Prince Charles 'saves Ark Royal’

The name HMS Ark Royal – one of the most historic in Navy history – will pass to a new aircraft carrier, after an intervention by the Prince of Wales.


Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 7:30AM BST 02 May 2011
The Prince is understood to have privately agreed to allow HMS Prince of Wales, which is under construction, to be renamed Ark Royal, after the former flagship bearing the name was decommissioned.

A senior Navy officer is understood to have approached the Prince, who holds the rank of admiral in the Navy, who made clear that he had no objection to the name change.

A defence source said: “The Prince of Wales has been asked and he is pretty relaxed about it.”

A senior Navy officer said it was virtually unheard of to change the name of a ship that was already being built.

“But this does recognise that the name Ark Royal is iconic. The name conjures up the whole history of these islands and it would represent the future of the Navy and its past,” he said.

Clarence House said no formal approach had been made on the name change

A Ministry of Defence official said no decision had yet been made on naming the ship, which would be the sixth to be called Ark Royal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8487325/Prince-Charles-saves-Ark-Royal.html

 

[Thorvic]

Actually all that says is there would be no objection to switching the name from the Royal Family.
I don't think the Navy would even consdier it until the know what the final fate of Ark Royal V will be as they wouldn't want two ships of the same name afloat, even if one is a museum or similar attraction.

Of course they can cash in on the name and maybe get the new Duchess of Cambridge to christen the 2nd ship when its laid down to cash in on the fame game, but it would make it alot harder to dispose of either ship should the need eventually arise !.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Of course they can cash in on the name and maybe get the new Duchess of Cambridge to christen the 2nd ship when its laid down to cash in on the fame game, but it would make it alot harder to dispose of either ship should the need eventually arise !.

Which, of course, is exactly why the Navy will be pushing for it.

Actually, I think it's probably time to give the Ark Royal name a rest: we've got too many good names to insist on reusing the same ones over and over.

 

[Mike Pryce]

A senior Navy officer said it was virtually unheard of to change the name of a ship that was already being built.

IIRC the last Ark Royal was to be called HMS Indomitable, but the name was changed after she was laid down and the old (cat and trap) Ark Royal went out of service.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I actually prefer Prince of Wales, its a nice pairing with Queen Elizabeth and raises thoughts of the old Battleship names, both the Dreadnought PoW's having interesting careers. There is also a certain honour to those who died aboard the KGV class ship both in action against Bismark and the ships sinking. Not to mention a certain irony in using the name of a ship sunk by aircraft (that was to have been escorted by a carrier) for an aircraft carrier.

Just my opinion though.

 

[robunos]

The Prince is understood to have privately agreed to allow HMS Prince of Wales, which is under construction, to be renamed Ark Royal, after the former flagship bearing the name was decommissioned.

I think it's more a case of the Prince of Wales not wanting to be associated with a ship that's
supposed to be mothballed upon completion, and not see service (until it's sold off...).

[That's me off to the Tower, then...]

Actually, I think it's probably time to give the Ark Royal name a rest: we've got too many good names to insist on reusing the same ones over and over.

It also seems to be a new tradition that the Royal Navy always has a ship named
'Ark Royal' in commission.

I actually prefer Prince of Wales, its a nice pairing with Queen Elizabeth

This is one that's been missed, the first capital ship built in a monarch's reign is named for them,
the second being named for their heir.
The current Queen has been on the throne for 59 years; only now is a ship deemed worthy of her
name being built....


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

I may not be British, I may not even be of British decent(German actually), but I personally believe that the Royal Naval should always have a carrier named Ark Royal.

Now if only Germany will have the guts to name a new ship Bismarck...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The current Queen has been on the throne for 59 years; only now is a ship deemed worthy of her
name being built....

But it’s not being named for her. It’s being named the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the current monarch is HRH Queen Elizabeth II. The same issue arose when CVA-01 was to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth obviously for the famous Elizabethan Queen of the same name and her mother HRH The Queen Mother.

Apparently the monarch(s) aren’t that keen on this idea. QEII’s father declined the honour and insisted that the lead new battleship od hisa reign be called HMS King George V after his father. His older brother HRH King Edward VIII never got the chance due to a truncated reign. HRH King George V had the first lead ship named for him but originally they were going to call it Royal George (see below). His dad King Edward VI started the tradition with the first lead ship of battleships being named directly for him. There was no such honour for HRH Queen Victoria. She had a paddle steamer built in India named after her a few years after her coronation. But the honour of the last all wood 1st class ship of the line named for her about 20 years into her reign after many others had been built.

The real tradition of naming first capital ship after the new monarch was a succession of HMS Royal Georges for HRH Kings George I, II, III and IV. Since this was the same name being reused multiple occasions to honour the coronation and for George IV it took seven years to be commissioned after his crowning (but that was because of the long ship build at this time) it wasn’t the same as this modern ‘tradition’. So really this ‘tradition’ only applied to two Kings between 1903 and 1912. The real tradition would appear to be the reigning monarch wanting a ship named for their parent.