The go ahead given for RN carriers P of W and QE.

[Dave Wooley]

I was unaware that the MOD were considering a cut down TSR2 strike varient for the cancelled CVA-01 project . That would have been interesting considering that the TSR-2 was considered to be one of the best strike aircraft of its day and more advanced than the equivalent F111.
Dave Wooley

The TSR2 was 20 years ahead of its time and truely a world beater.
Of course it was all british, apart from some of its electronics.
Many of the systems were again reused on the Tornado's.
Also the Tornado coming along time after were slightly less capable.
ohhh if only, if only we had, damn you Labour government!
They would still be in service today with the RAF.
The F111 and Phantom were also both backwards steps meant to fill the void.

In the Fleet Air Arm terms we have to Mountbatten to thank for saying to the Aussies you can have 10 buccaneer's for the price of 1 TSR-2.
If we had gone through with the CVA-01 and a navalised TSR-2 I doubt the Falklands would have ever ocurred.

I certainly agree and although the TSR-2 was primarily
designed for the RAF and thus for conventional runway
operations. A slightly smaller variant as suggested at
the time for the CVA-01, using catapult launch could have
given the RN and unbeatable and formidable carrier strike
aircraft . The original was capable of high and low altitude
with a performance of Mach 2.5 at 54000ft using it's
unique wing form to give much improved roll stability.
Alas the project was cancelled by the then minister of
defence Dennis Healy and in part to pressure from the
US to buy TFX. One big mistake: mad_1:
Here is one of the last remaining prototypes "of this extraordinary aircraft "XR222" at Duxford.

Dave Wooley

[Laurence Batchelor]

I've seen both prototypes at Cosford & Duxford and have a CD of detailed photos of them, perhaps my favourite aircraft of all time.
However, I've never seen anything on the navalised version, are there drawings?
The only thing I've seen are built up Fleet Air Arm scheme 1/72 Airfix kits.

[Dave Wooley]

I've seen both prototypes at Cosford & Duxford and have a CD of detailed photos of them, perhaps my favourite aircraft of all time.
However, I've never seen anything on the navalised version, are there drawings?
The only thing I've seen are built up Fleet Air Arm scheme 1/72 Airfix kits.

I was stunned when we got the news that the then labour government had pulled the plug on the project . The fact that the MOD were considering a slightly smaller navalised variant was news to me and it would be interesting to see if any drawings exist.
Dave Wooley

[NAVMACS_V2]

For example, the sea harriers failed to establish complete air superiority and prevent Argentine attacks during day or night, nor could they stop the daily flights of C-130 Hercules transports to the islands.

My point exactly. The Harriers had no loiter time over the islands so they were unable to establish air superiority over the target and they lacked the range (and numbers) to prevent Argentinian air attacks on the task force. Most of the British losses were to iron bombs dropped by obsolete attack planes (A-4s mostly). The Harrier was and is an exceptional attack plane and a capable dogfighter but it is not an air superiority fighter like the F-14 was or F-18 is. It's probably the closest thing to a Skyraider available nowadays. The British also lost six Harriers to ground fire and several others to operational accidents.

The British were lucky they were fighting a third-rate opponent at the Falklands. Had Argentina considered that the British might actually try and take the islands back and proactively tried to defend the islands by fortifying the airstrip at Port Stanley and basing their fighters and Exocet missiles on the islands, sortied their carrier and British built frigates before the British submarines arrived and deployed more AA batteries on the islands, the British might not have been able to take the islands back at all.

They also caught a break when Exocet missiles fired by the Argentinians hit the Atlantic Conveyor instead of Invincible, which was what they thought they were shooting at. They lost a lot of important material when she sank, but losing Invincible would have just about broken their backs.

My point is simply that a catapult launch enables the aircraft to carry a much heavier load because the carrier does the work for the plane of getting it airborne. A modern steam catapult can easily and successfully launch an aircraft in zero wind conditions. In 1987 I watched the USS Constellation riding at Anchor in Diego Garcia launching and recovering F-18s one afternoon.

A rolling takeoff burns a lot more fuel and a vertical takeoff is horribly inefficient by comparison. Consider that for fifty years world navies have been trying to develop VTOL combat aircraft and in all that time have developed one good one, the Harrier, and one mediocre one, the Soviet 'Forger.' In time the F-35 may prove to be a world-beater, but it also may be an expensive failure. The fielding of the V-22 Osprey is twenty years late because of technical issues that may or may not have been completely resolved.

[NAVMACS_V2]

These are simply technologies "lost" in the RN. They want to accumulate experience in large flight deck operations before they convert to the USN/French method. It is quicker for them (or the USSR) to accumulate "successes" to show to lawmakers with the ramp than with the unknown catapult, even though they invented it.

That is weird considering that the British not only developed the steam catapult but the angled deck and mirrored landing system too, the three tools that make the modern large deck carrier possible.

It has always amazed me how the Royal Navy pioneered so much of carrier aviation and yet was perpetually hamstrung by the RAF providing the Fleet Air Arm with mediocre combat aircraft during world war two.

[jjb]

The thing that reduced the FAA to a crises point was the initial post WW1 decision to make the RAF responsible for all British aviation when they had little/no interest in carrier ops. Then when the RN did take back responsibility for their own aircraft they made some pretty serious mistakes, the adherence to two seat fighters and experimenting with the turret fighter etc. at a time when the RAF's fighters were not especially suitable for carrier use in essentially being short range interceptors. The Spitfire was a magnificent fighter, but it's short range and light build meant it was never a particularly great carrier fighter in Seafire form, although it remained a great fighter when actually engaged in combat. Hence the FAA's reliance on US carrier fighters.

[Dave Wooley]

Its worth remembering that although the RN were forced to make do with the "through deck cruiser" design from the 1970s onwards . The combination of the Harrier and the S/VTOL design concept deployed during the Falklands war contributed much to the defeat of the Mirage and Sky Hawks as the Sidewinder missile with out any combat loses to themselves .
Dave Wooley

[jjb]

The "through deck cruiser" has always been seen as subterfuge and lies by the RN to get carriers approved without politicians noticing it, but actually the design did evolve from a planned ASW command cruiser requirement and the design ended up being "through deck" as it was decided it made the most sense operationally and wasn't really a deliberate piece of deceit at all. The politicians knew fine well what they'd approved with the design and it was re-classified pretty early on in it's life.

[phil gollin]

For example, the sea harriers failed to establish complete air superiority and prevent Argentine attacks during day or night, nor could they stop the daily flights of C-130 Hercules transports to the islands.

My point exactly. The Harriers had no loiter time over the islands so they were unable to establish air superiority over the target and they lacked the range (and numbers) to prevent Argentinian air attacks on the task force. Most of the British losses were to iron bombs dropped by obsolete attack planes (A-4s mostly). The Harrier was and is an exceptional attack plane and a capable dogfighter but it is not an air superiority fighter like the F-14 was or F-18 is. It's probably the closest thing to a Skyraider available nowadays. The British also lost six Harriers to ground fire and several others to operational accidents.

The British were lucky they were fighting a third-rate opponent at the Falklands. Had Argentina considered that the British might actually try and take the islands back and proactively tried to defend the islands by fortifying the airstrip at Port Stanley and basing their fighters and Exocet missiles on the islands, sortied their carrier and British built frigates before the British submarines arrived and deployed more AA batteries on the islands, the British might not have been able to take the islands back at all.

They also caught a break when Exocet missiles fired by the Argentinians hit the Atlantic Conveyor instead of Invincible, which was what they thought they were shooting at. They lost a lot of important material when she sank, but losing Invincible would have just about broken their backs.

My point is simply that a catapult launch enables the aircraft to carry a much heavier load because the carrier does the work for the plane of getting it airborne. A modern steam catapult can easily and successfully launch an aircraft in zero wind conditions. In 1987 I watched the USS Constellation riding at Anchor in Diego Garcia launching and recovering F-18s one afternoon.

A rolling takeoff burns a lot more fuel and a vertical takeoff is horribly inefficient by comparison. Consider that for fifty years world navies have been trying to develop VTOL combat aircraft and in all that time have developed one good one, the Harrier, and one mediocre one, the Soviet 'Forger.' In time the F-35 may prove to be a world-beater, but it also may be an expensive failure. The fielding of the V-22 Osprey is twenty years late because of technical issues that may or may not have been completely resolved.

Lots of misconceptions.

The main problem with the Falklands Task Force was due to lack of AEW. This meant that either CAPs had to be flown (very wasteful) or else Sea Harriers launched on warning.

The Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harrier was an excellent fighter (and the Mark 2 outstanding regarded until the day it was withdrawn as among, if not THE, best in the world at short-range fighting). The RAF version was an attack aircraft.

Agreed the Argentinians were stupid not to use the Falklands properly, but their ships could not have been at sea once the British submarines arrived.

The reason the exocet didn't hit a carrier was because the decoys worked.

Even the first (British) steam catapults could launch aircraft at anchor.

The case for the S/TOVL Queen Elizabeths is for a Strike Carrier where the F-22s (if working as advertised) will generate more sorties and faster turn-arounds than an equivalent conventional carrier. If one wants total flexibility then a conventional carrier would be better all round, but NOT for strike work as defined (i.e. no in flight re-fuelling).

[Werner]

The case for the S/TOVL Queen Elizabeths is for a Strike Carrier where the F-22s (if working as advertised) will generate more sorties and faster turn-arounds than an equivalent conventional carrier. If one wants total flexibility then a conventional carrier would be better all round, but NOT for strike work as defined (i.e. no in flight re-fuelling).

They have made a perfectly reasonable choice considering their experience and the resulting tactics.

Mind you, these ships will never "alpha strike" in the US sense. They simply lack the capacity to put that kind of operation into effect.

With F-35B STO/VL aircraft operational doctrine will see a continuity from the Invincible class. The catapult and arrested landing gear options are insurance. Perhaps they also were put into the design to force the size up. In any event, with the F-35B the only aircraft in view, the 50 aircraft aboard will represent only a fraction of the offensive power of Charles de Gaulle or an American CVN.

As a side note, the Wasp class LHDs are expected to carry up to 20 F-35B, depending on the mission.

[phil gollin]

Quote :-

......... In any event, with the F-35B the only aircraft in view, the 50 aircraft aboard will represent only a fraction of the offensive power of Charles de Gaulle or an American CVN.

unquote

Yes for SOME cases, but NOT for the design case due to the higher sortie generation rate for V/STOL.

The only advantage the CdG will have will be its AEW aircraft - it is proving somewhat limited in operation (but that will no doubt be argued over).

The real comparison will be between the Queen Elizabeths and the French PA2 - same hull (near enough although no one will be surprised if the PA2 comes out just that little bit longer and wider).

[Guest]

If the new British carrier can manage 50 aircraft, it would seem a very close match for the Charles De Gaulle to me. The only major advantage of CDG would be an longer ranged AEWC capability. Incidentally, the French doesn't think this carrier is hopelessly substandard compare to the CDG, they canceled CDG's sister ship due to high cost of the nuclear plant and opted to to use the very same common basic design as the new British CV for their 2nd carrier. Guess what, that means the Frenchies will have basically the same ship as you Brits, only with catapults and arrester wires.


- Chuck

[Werner]

If the new British carrier can manage 50 aircraft, it would seem a very close match for the Charles De Gaulle to me. The only major advantage of CDG would be an longer ranged AEWC capability. Incidentally, the French doesn't think this carrier is hopelessly substandard compare to the CDG, they canceled CDG's sister ship due to high cost of the nuclear plant and opted to to use the very same common basic design as the new British CV for their 2nd carrier. Guess what, that means the Frenchies will have basically the same ship as you Brits, only with catapults and arrester wires.


- Chuck

Makes all the difference. They're not doing that for funzies. The Rafale-N and Hawkeye make the notional air group much more effective. The fact that they can also launch other types of aircraft which do not carry so many slow-to-evolve VTOL parts also means she has flexibility not available to the British ship. I can think of mid/long range ASW as a mission denied to the non-CTOL carriers.

According to GLOBALSECURITY.COM, the RN F35-B has 5/7 the payload of the USN CTOL F-35C, 2/3 the combat radius and 2/3 mission availability.

I'm sure these numbers reflect the proportional abilities of the Rafale as well.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

[Werner]

Quote :-

......... In any event, with the F-35B the only aircraft in view, the 50 aircraft aboard will represent only a fraction of the offensive power of Charles de Gaulle or an American CVN.

unquote

Yes for SOME cases, but NOT for the design case due to the higher sortie generation rate for V/STOL.

The only advantage the CdG will have will be its AEW aircraft - it is proving somewhat limited in operation (but that will no doubt be argued over).

The real comparison will be between the Queen Elizabeths and the French PA2 - same hull (near enough although no one will be surprised if the PA2 comes out just that little bit longer and wider).

You have swallowed the ski ramp opium. The aircraft this ship launches have only 2/3 the capacity and endurance of their CTOL equivalents and (as opposed to a USN CVN), they are launching from a ship with half the capacity.

It's also clear from the pair of JBDs on the notional model that the cycle rate for launching these afterburner equipped aircraft is not going to be any higher than a CTOL carrier with two catapults. This is a different beast than either Invincible or USS Nimitz. The recovery rate will probably be slower, because they will approach the flight deck at a walk, and not 200 knots. These cycle rates will be determined by the ability of flight deck personnel to handle the aircraft, and not your calculator.

I realize if you've been given a load of lemons, make lemonade, but it is not a panacea nor is it the perfect solution.

A USN CVN can theoretically launch or recover an alpha-strike of 70-90 aircraft in a 60 minute window; your ski ramp ship will never do that.

It's clear to me that the Admiralty chose a conservative, achievable design which would allow them continuity with prior doctrine and training. These ships and the aircraft that fly from them are not a break from prior practice, but a logical, conservative evolution of existing skills and tactics.

[Werner]

After having seen the damage inflicted on carrier aircraft over North Vietnam, I wonder how many F-35Bs will be able to return to the carrier after an opposed strike. It seems like any damage which fouls the lifting engine, it's doors or the vectored thrust system is fatal for a carrier-borne F-35B (can you tell I'm not fond of the F-35??)

[Guest]

According to GLOBALSECURITY.COM, the RN F35-B has 5/7 the payload of the USN CTOL F-35C, 2/3 the combat radius and 2/3 mission availability.

I'm sure these numbers reflect the proportional abilities of the Rafale as well.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

Rafale was designed almost 15 years before F-35, and is by all standards at least 1/2 generation earlier than F-35. One might even say that Rafele really belongs to the same generation as the F-16, but where as F-16 was an early entrant to this generation and in someways defined what it is meant by being a fighter of that generation, Rafale and Eurofighter represent the penultimate culmination of that generation of fighter.
Yet I bet Rafale will outmaneuvers the F-35 in any close combat because early variants of F-16 and F-18, and most other 4th generation fighters such as Su-27, Mig-29, Grippen, J-10, LCA, and Eurofighter are more agile than F-16, and therefore considerably more agile than the F-35 has striven to be.

In my mind, F-35 is really an 21st century American equivalent of the Mig -21. It is a fighter that strives to be just good enough so that in very large numbers, it can over come any likely opponents.

[Guest]

I meant early versions of F-16 are more agile than current versions, and F-35 is not as agile as current version.

[Jack Ray]

The "through deck cruiser" has always been seen as subterfuge and lies by the RN to get carriers approved without politicians noticing it, but actually the design did evolve from a planned ASW command cruiser requirement and the design ended up being "through deck" as it was decided it made the most sense operationally and wasn't really a deliberate piece of deceit at all. The politicians knew fine well what they'd approved with the design and it was re-classified pretty early on in it's life.

The interesting thing about the Invincible class is that, in its embryonic stages, it was supposed to be an ASW platform designed to free the still-born CVA-01's flightdeck from the ASW "overhead" that limited 1950s RN airgroups when compared to contemporary USN airgroups. When CVA-01 was still on the table, the RN's plan was to have dedicated CVAs and purpose-built CVSs.

Jack

[jjb]

The early history of the ASW command cruiser is a fascinating story, with some very interesting concepts proposed and rejected, including vessels not unlike the French and Italian large helicopter carrying cruisers of the era. In the end the Invincible class were made as through deck and with the Harrier it was soon realised that this offered an alternative to the traditional carrier in a much more limited way, but the design didn't originate to do that, and politicians knew that the through deck cruiser with Harriers offered a slim means of retaining carrier aviation. At the time nobody could have imagined just how important that slim capability would become in 1982. I just smile at the way a myth has taken hold of the RN building these ships without politicians noticing what they were approving
On the CVF, it's a good compromise and should be a fine ship. The French PA2 will also be a fine ship, almost certainly a lot better than CdG which has been a text book example of how not to build a carrier, the decision to go nuclear then use an unsuitable reactor plant has impacted right the way through the chain of the design with an under powered ship built too small. Good air group though, Rafale and E2 is a superb air group.

[ViperTomcat]

People who are making broad, sweeping generalizations about the manuverability of the F-35 family are making them out of a stance of ignorance.

While the F-35 isnt visibily on the cutting edge, it is in many different areas. It's cockpit design and sensor fusion are beyond that of the F-22, as it will have 5 years of developement time behind it when it reaches IOC.

The F-35 will feature thrust vectoring, while not as advanced or broad as the F-22 or SU-30MKI, it does feature it. Unclassified statements made by F-22 pilots state that the F-22 is faster, climbs faster and higher than the F-15A, and it turns better than a F-16A Block 0,5-25 and the F-16C+ family.

Rest assured the USN wont replace the baby Hornets with a brick, nor will the USAF/USMC replace their Harriers and Vipers (respectively). Every aircraft has it's disadvantages, the F-35's being it's overall payload capacity, which in terms of pure numbers, is inferior to the legacy fighters it is replacing.

However, when a pinpoint accurate 250 Small Diameter Bomb does the same job, better than a 500 or 1000 pound LGB or JDAM, I would rather have 5-6 SDB's vs. 2 1000 pound JDAM.


The SU-27K is *obsolete*, the SU-33 is *obsolete*, even the F/A-18A+/C's (baby Hornets) are on the edge of becoming a liability on the modern battlefield with the SA-10/Teen/Double digit series of SAM's, the SU-30MKI, and other fighters developed in the 90's and 21st century.

The RN's best two options, realistically, are the F-35 or a navalized Typhoon. Anything else would be taking a significant and near deadly step backwards. In combat, you dont want parity, you want to fight an unfair fight.

And yes, even I supported the retirement of the F-14. The Super Hornets and F-35's are the future, they're the cutting edge, and they will be what moves the military forward, not aircraft that have been in service and have become so heavy and burdened, that they dont even resemble their intial intended role (the Rafale and F-16 come to mind, dont even get me started on the Grippen).