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

[jjb]

Personally I have no issue with the RAF getting the STOVL F35 for use off the two carriers, and if they go catapults then I'd still support getting the F35 in catapult take off guise. As has been pointed out by Viper Combat the days of hanging a truck load of dumb bombs from pylons covering every available piece of wing and belly have gone and a STOVL F35 with a PGM will be an extremely capable fighter.

[Laurence Batchelor]

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.

What I've been saying all along, I'm glad someone else can see sense!
Personally I'd prefer a navalised Typhoon, but that's just me.

Am I right in suggesting the RN will base both of these carriers out of Portsmouth?
Will the existing infrastructure there take 2 x 60,000ton warships?
Furthermore will more Type 45's now be ordered now the carriers are more concrete?

[ViperTomcat]

Completely!

The Typhoon already has a very strong airframe, and has very good growth potential, even if it is older than the F-35.

The fact that the PoW and the QE will be able to convert to conventional flight ops is a godsend, especially if for some reason the STVOL systems of the F-35 prove problematic when damaged. It can always then go back to conventional take off and landings.

[scratchshipnut]

Why dont they just contract to build a Nimitz?

[Werner]

Why dont they just contract to build a Nimitz?

Not enough money available.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Too expensive to maintain one for the RN's operational budget also.

Usually when and where it can, the UK armed forces wish to stand on their own two feet and not be too dependant on an ally.

[scratchshipnut]

We're not allies we're related

[Werner]

The real life cost of a CVN is approximately $12 billion plus $150 million in annual operating costs.

Frankly, there is only one country on Earth that can absorb such costs.

[Werner]

We're not allies we're related

That was Churchill's dream: the English Speaking Nations would unite into a grand commonwealth. Unfortunately, our politicians are somewhat smaller in their outlook than to imagine such a Universe, whether governed from Washington DC, London, Wellington or Sydney.

I would, of course, demand that London was the rightful seat of our community.

[chuck]

We're not allies we're related

By that standard we should be looking to South America in a couple of decades.

[chuck]

We're not allies we're related

That was Churchill's dream: the English Speaking Nations would unite into a grand commonwealth. Unfortunately, our politicians are somewhat smaller in their outlook than to imagine such a Universe, whether governed from Washington DC, London, Wellington or Sydney.

I would, of course, demand that London was the rightful seat of our community.

Churchill's dream was to use whatever means is available to impress former British colonies into a force to extend the tenure of a rapidly fading British empire upon the world stage.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Churchill's dream was to use whatever means is available to impress members former British colonies into a force to extend the tenure of a rapidly fading British empire upon the world stage.

Bless old Winny!
He had his moments

[Guest]

Too expensive to maintain one for the RN's operational budget also.

Usually when and where it can, the UK armed forces wish to stand on their own two feet and not be too dependant on an ally.

And when was that? Gee we can go back to Waterloo when Old Blucher bailed his "British allies" out. besides like someone else ststed we are cousins not Allies.

[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).

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.

Horses for courses.

No, a Queen Elizabeth won't be able to launch "Alpha Strikes", but it will provide more individual strikes at a quicker rate (for un-refuelled strikes) than a CVN of equivalent size. The V/STOL aircraft are meant to operate much more quickly (launches and landings) than conventional. There has been much work done on this and it isn't in dispute, even by RAND and the USN.

If you see the USN Proceedings for last month and this month you will see Norman Polmar basically advocating conventionally powered, Queen Elizabeth sized ships for the USN as more affordable and flexible.

[Laurence Batchelor]

And when was that? Gee we can go back to Waterloo when Old Blucher bailed his "British allies" out. besides like someone else ststed we are cousins not Allies.

Note the tern of phrase Usually when and where it can

[Werner]

No, a Queen Elizabeth won't be able to launch "Alpha Strikes", but it will provide more individual strikes at a quicker rate (for un-refuelled strikes) than a CVN of equivalent size.

Could you point me at something to read which will substantiate this? With JBDs up and down during the take off, you can only roll one plane at a time; this seems to me to put the rate fairly close to the 45 seconds of an American flight deck.

As far as Polmar's statements, I must have missed them in my Proceedings. It might be time to reevaluate the composition of carrier wings, but relying on a single technology has been a classic USN error. Remember DASH? Even if we abandon large flight deck construction now, the full influence of this change is 30-40 years in the future.

I'd say the real issue is not the size of the flight deck, or the procurement cost, but the willingness of Congressional committees to approve more than one carrier in the building program, and the cost of the manpower to operate her.

[hood]

the plan is that both ships will be based in portsmouth along with the daring class. therss a long way to go yet and niether ship is safe till in the water . any future govement could sacifice these two ships to jusitfy trident.
the army and raf wont be pleased the army wants a new tank ,and radio system and the raf is crying out for a new transport plane plus a other 80 typhoons

[Francisco P. de Nanclares]

...The recovery rate will probably be slower, because they will approach the flight deck at a walk, and not 200 knots....

But they can be recovered in couples or, on a flight deck that size, probably in trios. Nonetheless, I agree with you they are different beasts and hardly comparable. You have to make lemonade with a load of lemons, but I am sure the RN will make a very good lemonade.

Cheers.
Pachi.

[Werner]

...The recovery rate will probably be slower, because they will approach the flight deck at a walk, and not 200 knots....

But they can be recovered in couples or, on a flight deck that size, probably in trios. Nonetheless, I agree with you they are different beasts and hardly comparable. You have to make lemonade with a load of lemons, but I am sure the RN will make a very good lemonade.

Cheers.
Pachi.

Discussing the stability of the F-35B in hover with my pilot son, he believes with me that with the hover doors open there will be far too much sail area for the aircraft to be recovered under any kind of adverse weather conditions. He suggested the F-35B would benefit from a RAST-type "beat trap" system to ensure there are no "near flight deck" wind shear accidents.

The video of the hover test certainly seemed to show an "antsy" hover.

[Francisco P. de Nanclares]

I was unaware of those hover problems you mention. In fact, I was taking for granted the plane would be a step forward from the Harrier in every facet, including hover, of course, although it seems I was wrong according to your post.

Pachi.