New British Carriers, cutbacks and CATOBAR vs STOVL

[Thorvic]

To my knowledge there has been no change in the current position of completing HMS Prince of Wales as a CATOBAR CV.
Contracts signed, monies paid or committed and work ongoing.

Actually they haven't both HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales are being built to the original STOVL design (less the Ski jump which was removd from the contract this year). ACA are on schedule to launch QE in 2014 and hand over to the RN in 2016, with PoW following 2 years behind. This is why the issue has arisen now as the change in contract to build one of them in CATOBAR format and the initial batch of F-35's due to be placed next year are supposed to be funded in the PR12 budget due from the MOD today 26 Mar 2012. ACA/BAE have been instructed to invstigate the switching over constructiojn to CATOBAR and the MoD has reserved the 2nd EMALS set with the US DoD but thats as far as it goes at present.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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

The letter quoted in the Telegraph is not from the US Navy to the UK MoD it is from the Department of the Navy (ASN RDA) which manages both Navy and Marine acquisitions. To assume this is all about the US Navy is a simplistic understanding of how they organise sea based air power.

I haven’t ignored the ‘integrated carrier strike group’ just pointed out that it is mostly redundant if the UK keeps the F-35B because they can maintain two carriers in rotation and it is much easier to maintain a larger air wing (as it is much easier to convert RAF F-35B pilots to carrier qualified than F-35C pilots). Therefore do not need to fly from a USN or French carrier when their single catapult and arrestor carrier is in dock nor need to host USN or le Royale units to make up the numbers.

Further as pointed out and far from refuted by you the concept of deploying a US F-35 squadron onto a RN carrier when it deploys to some trouble spot they can easily take a USMC F-35B squadron. If the UK goes back to the original carrier design and buying the F-35B they will not suffer in regard to integration with the US. The French may be left out when their single carrier is unserviceable but it is the current situation for them and hardly should be a policy driver for HM Govt.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The letter quoted in the Telegraph is not from the US Navy to the UK MoD it is from the Department of the Navy (ASN RDA) which manages both Navy and Marine acquisitions. To assume this is all about the US Navy is a simplistic understanding of how they organise sea based air power.

I never said it was about how the USN organises sea power, I simply pointed out that the letter is self-evidently about C versus B which is why it was about C versus B, interoperability being just one facet of the debate. And I am well aware of the role of the Department of the Navy, funnily enough it also has an interest in Navy operations.

I haven’t ignored the ‘integrated carrier strike group’ just pointed out that it is mostly redundant if the UK keeps the F-35B because they can maintain two carriers in rotation and it is much easier to maintain a larger air wing (as it is much easier to convert RAF F-35B pilots to carrier qualified than F-35C pilots). Therefore do not need to fly from a USN or French carrier when their single catapult and arrestor carrier is in dock nor need to host USN or le Royale units to make up the numbers.

Where do you get that idea from? It has not been stated anywhere that that is the case, keeping two carriers in rotation is a function of available O&M funds and far less to do with upfront capital costs, there is nothing to state that F-35B would magically free-up the O&M funds to sustain two UK carriers. Secondly, hosting allied aircraft is far more useful than simply keeping up UK numbers, it provides the USN with another deck during international operations and allows the French to utilise the hull when de Gaulle is unavailable. You have also never explained how a fully laden Rafale is going to use a non-CTOL equipped carrier.

Further as pointed out and far from refuted by you the concept of deploying a US F-35 squadron onto a RN carrier when it deploys to some trouble spot they can easily take a USMC F-35B squadron. If the UK goes back to the original carrier design and buying the F-35B they will not suffer in regard to integration with the US. The French may be left out when their single carrier is unserviceable but it is the current situation for them and hardly should be a policy driver for HM Govt.

This is definitely up there with the most ludicrous statements you have made on this forum, of course it will effect integration with the US if the UK carrier can only operate aircraft from 30% of the Carrier capable US Squadrons instead of 100%, it is utterly absurd to suggest otherwise. International cooperation was a central plank of the original decision to switch to the C variant.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I never said it was about how the USN organises sea power, I simply pointed out that the letter is self-evidently about C versus B which is why it was about C versus B, interoperability being just one facet of the debate. And I am well aware of the role of the Department of the Navy, funnily enough it also has an interest in Navy operations.

Strange that you reject all my opinions and reasons for because I don’t have a quote from the government supporting them (which is quite strange considering I question the HM government’s stated reasons) yet you quite happily declare that this letter is all about the C vs B despite there being no quote to support this. Other than the US saying they are committed to supporting the RN if they chose the F-35C. If the ASN RDA was making the argument to the UK MoD that the C was what they should buy in place of the B they would have said so in the letter. If they had made such a ‘smoking gun’ statement then the Telegraph would have printed it.

Where do you get that idea from? It has not been stated anywhere that that is the case, keeping two carriers in rotation is a function of available O&M funds and far less to do with upfront capital costs, there is nothing to state that F-35B would magically free-up the O&M funds to sustain two UK carriers. Secondly, hosting allied aircraft is far more useful than simply keeping up UK numbers, it provides the USN with another deck during international operations and allows the French to utilise the hull when de Gaulle is unavailable. You have also never explained how a fully laden Rafale is going to use a non-CTOL equipped carrier.

If the UK acquires the F-35C then they will have one carrier that can fly them and another that can’t. If the UK acquires the F-35B then they will have two carriers that can fly them. While that carrier may still be in mothballs or sold off thanks to HM Govt cost cutting it is far more possible that having two that work with your plane will result in two in rotation rather than not being able to rotate at all.

As to your insistence that it is vitally important that the UK have a carrier that the USN and French can fly from it is made redundant by having a carrier that they entire UK Forces F-35 fleet can easily fly from without having to add the significant burden of carrier qualifications to RAF pilots. The Joint Force Harrier model can work with the F-35B and do so far easier thanks to the automatic hovering system. Being far easier to get on-board is one of the advantages inherent with STOVL and was proven in the Falklands where RAF pilots were converted with a fraction of the training and on hand facilities as what would have been needed with a cat and wire carrier. If what No. 1 Squadron, RAF did with their Harriers and MV Atlantic Conveyor and HM Ships Hermes and Invincible was attempted by No. 1 Squadron, RAAF with their Super Hornets and any USN Carrier there would be 10 Super Hornets in the water and maybe two getting on-board the carrier.

This is definitely up there with the most ludicrous statements you have made on this forum, of course it will effect integration with the US if the UK carrier can only operate aircraft from 30% of the Carrier capable US Squadrons instead of 100%, it is utterly absurd to suggest otherwise. International cooperation was a central plank of the original decision to switch to the C variant.

Your numerology approach to American force structure fails to take into account important details like what those squadrons are actually doing. ALL USN fighter squadrons are committed to maintaining USN carrier strike groups. Only a proportion of USMC fighter squadrons are committed to maintaining USN carrier and expeditionary strike groups. If there is any slack to provide a regular commitment to RN carrier deployments other than a oncer for show it is via the USMC’s F-35B force.

The point I’ve made over and over again is the RN F-35C model demands international co-operation to make it work. The RN F-35B still makes international co-operation possible but also enables a complete and far stronger sovereign capability. The choice between the two is clear cut which was why the RN chose the F-35B in the first place. The only rational reason for the F-35C is to allow for significant short term budget cuts. Now that they have been made and the long term costs need to be paid for the argument for the F-35C is harder and harder to make.

 

[Thorvic]

Abraham, why would the Navy Department send the UK MOD a letter raining the issue if they preferred the STOVL F-35B version ?. The USMC will already have STOVL capable friendly carrier deacks where they need them in the form of your own Canberra Class LHD's as i don't know if you noticed but the US and the USMC especially are focusing their attention on the Pacific sphere of operations. In Europe there are already the Spanish LHD and Italian STOVL carriers to support their USMC F-35B in the med, what they don't have is alterantive Conventional Carrier decks in the eastern Atlantic bar the French Charles De Gaulle, thats why they would like to see the UK CVF completed as an operational CATOBAR carrier.
As for converting the 2nd of the class, the funding may not be available whithin present budgets to convert it, but as we have the ship built we may well be able to justify the cost of the refit within the next SDSR or the one after it especially as we will have finally withdrawn from Afghanistan and drawn down our Garrison in Germany.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham, why would the Navy Department send the UK MOD a letter raining the issue if they preferred the STOVL F-35B version ?

It’s not a matter of one or the other. The UK MoD would have no doubt communicated to the US DoD their plans about the F-35C. Then they (US) start seeing all sorts of reports in the media and would have wanted to re-iterate any commitments, information and so on they would have provided to the UK MoD. Such as the costing and risk taking for EMALS and so on. The Americans are rightly very sensitive to being told one thing in private and then hearing another thing in public because they cop that crap all the time around the world.

The USMC will already have STOVL capable friendly carrier deacks where they need them in the form of your own Canberra Class LHD's as i don't know if you noticed but the US and the USMC especially are focusing their attention on the Pacific sphere of operations. In Europe there are already the Spanish LHD and Italian STOVL carriers to support their USMC F-35B in the med,

What’s that got to do with this? Nothing. Plus the Spanish and Italian carriers are too small to take onboard an additional US squadron and they are very unlikely to rotate their major fleet units with USN carriers for presence in the middle east. Which is what this all about and not RAN LHDs that will never operate USMC F-35Bs other than lily padding.

what they don't have is alterantive Conventional Carrier decks in the eastern Atlantic bar the French Charles De Gaulle, thats why they would like to see the UK CVF completed as an operational CATOBAR carrier.

And they need them? Alternative conventional carrier decks that is? What they want is the RN and la Royale to rotate their carriers with USN carrier strike groups in the middle east to relieve the American burden. They are willing to be all super joint about it. The French don’t need the help but the RN does. As I’ve pointed out the US can provide that help via the F-35B as well as the F-35C.

As for converting the 2nd of the class, the funding may not be available whithin present budgets to convert it, but as we have the ship built we may well be able to justify the cost of the refit within the next SDSR or the one after it especially as we will have finally withdrawn from Afghanistan and drawn down our Garrison in Germany.

Obviously it is far more likely that two STOVL carriers will be retained by the RN than two CATOBAR carriers. Which is why it’s also very likely at the moment that one STOVL carrier will be commissioned in place of one CATOBAR carrier.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Strange that you reject all my opinions and reasons for because I don’t have a quote from the government supporting them (which is quite strange considering I question the HM government’s stated reasons) yet you quite happily declare that this letter is all about the C vs B despite there being no quote to support this. Other than the US saying they are committed to supporting the RN if they chose the F-35C. If the ASN RDA was making the argument to the UK MoD that the C was what they should buy in place of the B they would have said so in the letter. If they had made such a ‘smoking gun’ statement then the Telegraph would have printed it.

Nothing strange about it, the letter was about C versus B, that was the whole point, it was providing cost suggestions for the C. B versus C does not mean one is being advocated over the other for the RN by the US (though the fact that they are providing more conservative cost estimates certainly hints at an agenda), simply that that is the discussion that is ongoing in the UK MoD- which self-evidently it is.

If the UK acquires the F-35C then they will have one carrier that can fly them and another that can’t. If the UK acquires the F-35B then they will have two carriers that can fly them. While that carrier may still be in mothballs or sold off thanks to HM Govt cost cutting it is far more possible that having two that work with your plane will result in two in rotation rather than not being able to rotate at all.

You are making things up again. The UK currently only has available O&M funds for one carrier post 2018, not for two, reducing capital expenditure through to 2018 by switching back to the B variant does not suddenly make money available for the operation of two carriers after 2018, to suggest so is just silly. Secondly, we do not even know if the ship will be in mothballs, it has previously been suggested that a buyer may be sought.

As to your insistence that it is vitally important that the UK have a carrier that the USN and French can fly from it is made redundant by having a carrier that they entire UK Forces F-35 fleet can easily fly from without having to add the significant burden of carrier qualifications to RAF pilots. The Joint Force Harrier model can work with the F-35B and do so far easier thanks to the automatic hovering system. Being far easier to get on-board is one of the advantages inherent with STOVL and was proven in the Falklands where RAF pilots were converted with a fraction of the training and on hand facilities as what would have been needed with a cat and wire carrier. If what No. 1 Squadron, RAF did with their Harriers and MV Atlantic Conveyor and HM Ships Hermes and Invincible was attempted by No. 1 Squadron, RAAF with their Super Hornets and any USN Carrier there would be 10 Super Hornets in the water and maybe two getting on-board the carrier.

All RAF/RN F-35 pilots will be carrier qualified just as they were in joint force Harrier, that you keep thinking there is some split just shows your ignorance on the subject, UK military planning has moved on somewhat since the Falklands. The UK is unlikely to operate any more than three squadrons of F-35s and in whatever variant the entire force will be carrier qualified to meet the desire to surge the number of aircraft on the carrier to 36 (as stated in the 2010 SDSR), or three squadrons.

Your numerology approach to American force structure fails to take into account important details like what those squadrons are actually doing. ALL USN fighter squadrons are committed to maintaining USN carrier strike groups. Only a proportion of USMC fighter squadrons are committed to maintaining USN carrier and expeditionary strike groups. If there is any slack to provide a regular commitment to RN carrier deployments other than a oncer for show it is via the USMC’s F-35B force.

No, what is absurd is your belief that USMC squadrons are/will be sat around doing nothing and just waiting to deploy on a UK carrier and the equally stupid idea that having a carrier that can only accommodate 30% of US carrier capable squadrons is somehow just as good as having one that can operate 100%. It actually defies logic. And I see you are still ignoring the other advantages of having USN aircraft able to operate of a UK carrier. And who said anything about a regular commitment anyway? The ability to do something does not make it a regular commitment.

The point I’ve made over and over again is the RN F-35C model demands international co-operation to make it work. The RN F-35B still makes international co-operation possible but also enables a complete and far stronger sovereign capability. The choice between the two is clear cut which was why the RN chose the F-35B in the first place. The only rational reason for the F-35C is to allow for significant short term budget cuts. Now that they have been made and the long term costs need to be paid for the argument for the F-35C is harder and harder to make.

But you have not made that point at all, you have in no way explained how the F-35B "also enables a complete and far stronger sovereign capability" you have fabricated things but you have not proved anything. There is not a shred of evidence that a switch back to the B variant will change the UK force structure as outlined by the 2010 SDSR (which is the entire thrust of your argument) merely your uninformed and un-sourced ramblings sprinkled with the usual array of arrogance and insults. In fact your complete lack of understanding is demonstrated by the statement that the C is about short term budget cuts, quite the opposite, it was about long term budget cuts by allowing one carrier to be removed from the long term fleet (offset by anglo-french/anglo-US joint ops) and the shrinking of the UK fast jet force to two types by eliminating Harrier and replacing Tornado with F-35 (for which the longer range and superior payload of the C would be more appropriate). The whole point of the current problem is that the decision actually increased short-term capital costs by increasing the cost of the carrier programme. The short term savings have already been achieved by eliminating the Harrier force, Ark Royal and two Tornado squadrons. Which brings me to this, I am still waiting for a single piece of evidence to support this assertion:

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

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You are making things up again. The UK currently only has available O&M funds for one carrier post 2018, not for two, reducing capital expenditure through to 2018 by switching back to the B variant does not suddenly make money available for the operation of two carriers after 2018, to suggest so is just silly. Secondly, we do not even know if the ship will be in mothballs, it has previously been suggested that a buyer may be sought.

No you are transposing what you wish I had said onto what I had. The SDR made it clear that there were many options for the second carrier. Including rotating it with the first to sustain a permanent carrier presence. If the spare carrier would require considerable additional capital expenditure to make it able to support F-35C operations then naturally that would make it less likely than the current plan to build the ship STOVL capable. Now I wonder how you will attempt to misrepresent this statement?

Once again you are talking nonsense, all RAF/RN F-35 pilots will be carrier qualified just as they were in joint force Harrier, that you keep thinking there is some split just shows your ignorance on the subject, UK military planning has moved on somewhat since the Falklands. At most the UK will operate 3 squadrons of F-35s and in whatever variant the entire force will be carrier qualified to meet the desire to surge the number of aircraft on the carrier to 36 (as stated in the 2010 SDSR), or three squadrons.

Really then please provide the source for a universal carrier qualification? All I have seen is the RAF F-35Cs will have the “capacity” to fly from the carrier if needed.

The single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned

This ‘capacity’ can be a word with a very wide definition.

There is a huge difference in time and effort between carrier qualifications for an F-35B or Harrier pilot and a F-35C or other conventional carrier aircraft pilot. If the RAF F-35C pilots are to all be carrier qualified then they won’t be doing much other than flying from carriers.

Once No, what is absurd is your belief that USMC squadrons are/will be sat around doing nothing and just waiting to deploy on a UK carrier and the equally stupid idea that having a carrier that can only accommodate 30% of US carrier capable squadrons is somehow just as good as having one that can operate 100%. It actually defies logic.

I never said or implied the USMC fighter units sit around doing nothing. That is another attempt by you to recast what I am saying into something easier for you to refute. But for units deploying as part of USN carrier and expeditionary strike groups there is a force generation cycle. There isn’t any room outside of this cycle for the USN fighter units to do anything else. The USMC on the other hand is not as committed to carrier and expeditionary strike group force generation.

But you have not made that point at all, you have in no way explained how the F-35B "also enables a complete and far stronger sovereign capability" you have fabricated things but you have not proved anything.

It is one thing to disagree with someone else’s opinions and their reasoning behind them. But your childish insistence that I have made no argument, have fabricated things and have proved nothing is an outrageous way to conduct yourself. You are simply sitting in the corner of the room repeating over and over hoping to drown out my comments. Your tantrum is far from convincing.

 

[JFC Fuller]

No you are transposing what you wish I had said onto what I had. The SDR made it clear that there were many options for the second carrier. Including rotating it with the first to sustain a permanent carrier presence. If the spare carrier would require considerable additional capital expenditure to make it able to support F-35C operations then naturally that would make it less likely than the current plan to build the ship STOVL capable. Now I wonder how you will attempt to misrepresent this statement?

No I am not, you suggested that the F-35B would make two British carriers available, it will not. It is very simple really. The 2010 SDSR was very explicit actually, the second carrier will be held at extended readiness which simply means it will be mothballed.

Once again you are talking nonsense, all RAF/RN F-35 pilots will be carrier qualified just as they were in joint force Harrier, that you keep thinking there is some split just shows your ignorance on the subject, UK military planning has moved on somewhat since the Falklands. At most the UK will operate 3 squadrons of F-35s and in whatever variant the entire force will be carrier qualified to meet the desire to surge the number of aircraft on the carrier to 36 (as stated in the 2010 SDSR), or three squadrons.

Really then please provide the source for a universal carrier qualification? All I have seen is the RAF F-35Cs will have the “capacity” to fly from the carrier if needed.

Provide a source saying they will not, the evidence that they will is pretty strong, the UK will have a limited number of F-35 squadrons (unlikely to be any more than 3) with a carrier air wing surge requirement of 36 (three squadrons), it will be based on Joint Force Harrier meaning it will be a joint asset within RAF strike command.

This ‘capacity’ can be a word with a very wide definition.

So can a lot of words.

There is a huge difference in time and effort between carrier qualifications for an F-35B or Harrier pilot and a F-35C or other conventional carrier aircraft pilot. If the RAF F-35C pilots are to all be carrier qualified then they won’t be doing much other than flying from carriers.

Yes they will, just as Marine Nationale pilots fly from land bases.

I never said or implied the USMC fighter units sit around doing nothing. That is another attempt by you to recast what I am saying into something easier for you to refute. But for units deploying as part of USN carrier and expeditionary strike groups there is a force generation cycle. There isn’t any room outside of this cycle for the USN fighter units to do anything else. The USMC on the other hand is not as committed to carrier and expeditionary strike group force generation.

You suggested that the USMC could magically take a squadron from its current commitments and instead commit it to a UK carrier, that is clearly absurd. It also does not paper over the fact that only being able to operate with 30% of US carrier capable squadrons is a disadvantage compared with being able to operate with 100%

It is one thing to disagree with someone else’s opinions and their reasoning behind them. But your childish insistence that I have made no argument, have fabricated things and have proved nothing is an outrageous way to conduct yourself. You are simply sitting in the corner of the room repeating over and over hoping to drown out my comments. Your tantrum is far from convincing.

Pointing out the truth and requesting that you provide facts to support outlandish assertions is not childish, when you state something as fact you should expect to be able to support it, so far you have failed. Which is why I am still waiting for some evidence to support this comment:

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

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No I am not, you suggested that the F-35B would make two British carriers available, it will not. It is very simple really. The 2010 SDSR was very explicit actually, the second carrier will be held at extended readiness which simply means it will be mothballed.

I never said there would be two carriers available but rather with two carriers in hand that can fly STOVL aircraft the RN can sustain a single carrier and not need holidays in carrier capability. Yes the SDSR is explicit but not as you say:

"To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops. Retaining this flexibility of choice is at the core of the Government’s adaptable approach."

Clearly there is more chance of rotating two carriers without expensive modifications that HM Govt. appears not to be able to afford for one carrier yet alone two.

 

[Mike Pryce]

It appears that the expected announcement will not now be made today, but next month (Telegraph said April 16th).


http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19288


So not a cut and dried decision either way.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I never said there would be two carriers available but rather with two carriers in hand that can fly STOVL aircraft the RN can sustain a single carrier and not need holidays in carrier capability. Yes the SDSR is explicit but not as you say:

"To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops. Retaining this flexibility of choice is at the core of the Government’s adaptable approach."

Clearly there is more chance of rotating two carriers without expensive modifications that HM Govt. appears not to be able to afford for one carrier yet alone two.

Clearly there is not, this is a case of O&M funding just as much capital expenditure, moving to the F-35B does not magically make O&M funding available (especially as the 2010 SDSR was written when GDP growth forecasts were substantially rosier than they are now), indeed if some of the reports of F-35 operating costs running above F-35C operating costs are true it could actually reduce available O&M funds. Also, still waiting for some evidence to support this:

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