Jump to content


Photo

Hms Queen Elizabeth


  • Please log in to reply
1175 replies to this topic

#1061 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,694 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 1708 PM

 

Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it?

 

 

I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think.

 

 

Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. 


  • 0

#1062 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,017 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 1720 PM

Furthermore, to me these posts again highlighted the limitations of a STOBAR carrier with relatively conventional aircraft. I really wonder why some countries invest vast sums in these (India), except perhaps as a learning opportunity (PLAN?) or just for national prestige, showing the flag and making port calls. What would be their role in a region where their most likely opponents can be expected to be decently armed?


STOBAR is cheaper. Aircraft requires less modifications for naval role than CATOBAR, much less STOVL which requires dedicated aircraft with considerable development investment. And the ship is cheaper, too, and doesn't need to be steam powered which always brings its own issues.
  • 0

#1063 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 1923 PM

STOVL is cheaper on a lot of levels that aren't immediately clear. The ship is cheaper, yes, but also far fewer deck crew are necessary to operate it - no deck crew are needed to operate or maintain cats or wires. Also aircrew training is vastly reduced compared to cat qual'ing CATOBAR pilots. The F-35B is an outstanding platform in terms of STOVL ease of use and STOVL capability*. It is also worth noting that the F-35C is heavier and has significantly inferior acceleration due to not just weight but the increased friction of the control surfaces, although the Charlie does have significantly more range.

*The USMC requirements did however limit the capability of the other two types.


  • 0

#1064 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 07 November 2019 - 0216 AM

 

 

Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it?

 

 

I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think.

 

 

Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. 

 

 

The F35B is not basically a Harrier. Its far more advanced and capable of carrying far more weapons, its stealthy, and its supersonic. Its like comparing a Hawker Hunter to an F15. The range is held against it, but if ive calculated it right, its actually got a longer combat radius than an F4 Phantom, which undertook all kinds of operations off carrier decks.

 

The reason why we did it is long and complicated, and yes, made more sense we still had Harriers. As given above on the prune thread however, there are still a number of reasons why it makes economic sense to do it this way.

 

TBH, Im not sure why people are getting hung up on UAV's. Im willing to bet sooner or later the USMC will want some to fly off their decks too. It doesnt strike me as beyond technical ability to develop a small UAV that an utilize a pegasus engine if we really want one. As the US Navy doesnt seem that bothered by having UAV's, it seem's difficult to slight the RN for a design where Carrier UAV's didnt even exist as a concept back in 1998 when they laid the spec's for this down.


  • 0

#1065 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 07 November 2019 - 1342 PM

 

Furthermore, to me these posts again highlighted the limitations of a STOBAR carrier with relatively conventional aircraft. I really wonder why some countries invest vast sums in these (India), except perhaps as a learning opportunity (PLAN?) or just for national prestige, showing the flag and making port calls. What would be their role in a region where their most likely opponents can be expected to be decently armed?


STOBAR is cheaper. Aircraft requires less modifications for naval role than CATOBAR, much less STOVL which requires dedicated aircraft with considerable development investment. And the ship is cheaper, too, and doesn't need to be steam powered which always brings its own issues.

 

Those characteristics are all true (and familiar). What I meant to ask is what kind of role is envisioned for such carriers and their aircraft during conflict against an opponent of at least medium weight? A STOBAR carrier with conventional aircraft is indeed much simpler and cheaper to get going and operate, but 1) still represents a substantial investment that could have been spent otherwise, 2) imposes severe limitations on the aircraft's fuel and weapons load.

 

Browsing through the Chinese defense forums (such as the CDF), it appears that the PRC has already had its fill and that it stopped the production of the J-15 STOBAR aircraft after only two dozen examples. Hence, its next and third carrier is rumored to be of the CATOBAR type, which naturally requires a redesign of this aircraft or a new design altogether. 

 

Then there is India. What is the precise need that is fulfilled by its carrier with its small complement of MiG-29Ks? Engage Pakistan from the sea during conflict? This implies that either the carrier has to get really close to the Pakistani coastline and thus within range of Pakistani land based aircraft or that a land-based tanker is required to increase the range of the MiG-29K. In the latter case, one could just as well base these aircraft on land, say on Jamnagar AFS in Rajkot.

 

(EDIT: An improvement of fleet air defense by the MiG-29Ks is of course a possibility.)


Edited by Daan, 07 November 2019 - 1539 PM.

  • 0

#1066 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,011 posts

Posted 07 November 2019 - 1349 PM

The big advantage of the F-35B should be its ability to operate dispersed from improvised land bases. I know it has a reputation for needing highly specialised surfaces to operate from, but I'm optimistic rolling take offs and landings could overcome that.


  • 0

#1067 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,694 posts

Posted 07 November 2019 - 1455 PM

 

 

 

Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it?

 

 

I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think.

 

 

Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. 

 

 

The F35B is not basically a Harrier. Its far more advanced and capable of carrying far more weapons, its stealthy, and its supersonic. Its like comparing a Hawker Hunter to an F15. The range is held against it, but if ive calculated it right, its actually got a longer combat radius than an F4 Phantom, which undertook all kinds of operations off carrier decks.

 

The reason why we did it is long and complicated, and yes, made more sense we still had Harriers. As given above on the prune thread however, there are still a number of reasons why it makes economic sense to do it this way.

 

TBH, Im not sure why people are getting hung up on UAV's. Im willing to bet sooner or later the USMC will want some to fly off their decks too. It doesnt strike me as beyond technical ability to develop a small UAV that an utilize a pegasus engine if we really want one. As the US Navy doesnt seem that bothered by having UAV's, it seem's difficult to slight the RN for a design where Carrier UAV's didnt even exist as a concept back in 1998 when they laid the spec's for this down.

 

 

Yes of course it has all the fancy stuff. As do the other F-35. Still the B is a STOVL aeroplane with all the baggage that comes with that.

 

 

Well if the Harriers had been flown longer it made sense. And the carriers been delivered more on time. 

 

 

 

The big advantage of the F-35B should be its ability to operate dispersed from improvised land bases. I know it has a reputation for needing highly specialised surfaces to operate from, but I'm optimistic rolling take offs and landings could overcome that.

 

Which non-existant dispersed improvised landingstrips might that be? In Germany those have been built over and done away with in recent Autobahn modernisations and renovations. In the ANTO exercises in the baltic countries there were still some from soviet times iirc, that were used.

 

The F-35 needs an internet connection, which you do not have in random places. And I would not count on it in a war. Having the Harriers in Afghanistan made them vulnerable and they lost some to attacks. I doubt anyone is ever going to be willing to risk F-35 that way. So not much use I can see for STOVL.


  • 0

#1068 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0027 AM

The potential for all of a nation's air force pilots to be qualified for operations off of its own or allied carriers, not just an elite naval aviator few, would be an interesting argument for STOVL, particularly between alliance partners.


  • 0

#1069 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0146 AM

Great series!!

 

Agreed, enjoying it immensely.


  • 0

#1070 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0215 AM

 

 

 

 

Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it?

 

 

I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think.

 

 

Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. 

 

 

The F35B is not basically a Harrier. Its far more advanced and capable of carrying far more weapons, its stealthy, and its supersonic. Its like comparing a Hawker Hunter to an F15. The range is held against it, but if ive calculated it right, its actually got a longer combat radius than an F4 Phantom, which undertook all kinds of operations off carrier decks.

 

The reason why we did it is long and complicated, and yes, made more sense we still had Harriers. As given above on the prune thread however, there are still a number of reasons why it makes economic sense to do it this way.

 

TBH, Im not sure why people are getting hung up on UAV's. Im willing to bet sooner or later the USMC will want some to fly off their decks too. It doesnt strike me as beyond technical ability to develop a small UAV that an utilize a pegasus engine if we really want one. As the US Navy doesnt seem that bothered by having UAV's, it seem's difficult to slight the RN for a design where Carrier UAV's didnt even exist as a concept back in 1998 when they laid the spec's for this down.

 

 

Yes of course it has all the fancy stuff. As do the other F-35. Still the B is a STOVL aeroplane with all the baggage that comes with that.

 

 

Well if the Harriers had been flown longer it made sense. And the carriers been delivered more on time. 

 

 

 

The big advantage of the F-35B should be its ability to operate dispersed from improvised land bases. I know it has a reputation for needing highly specialised surfaces to operate from, but I'm optimistic rolling take offs and landings could overcome that.

 

Which non-existant dispersed improvised landingstrips might that be? In Germany those have been built over and done away with in recent Autobahn modernisations and renovations. In the ANTO exercises in the baltic countries there were still some from soviet times iirc, that were used.

 

The F-35 needs an internet connection, which you do not have in random places. And I would not count on it in a war. Having the Harriers in Afghanistan made them vulnerable and they lost some to attacks. I doubt anyone is ever going to be willing to risk F-35 that way. So not much use I can see for STOVL.

 

 

Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it.

 

There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here.

 

The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC.....


  • 0

#1071 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0217 AM

The potential for all of a nation's air force pilots to be qualified for operations off of its own or allied carriers, not just an elite naval aviator few, would be an interesting argument for STOVL, particularly between alliance partners.

 

That Japan and South Korea are now looking at Carriers equipped with F35B, certainly indicates there is a lot of potential for cross decking. I dont think the political benefits of something like that have been adequately explored.


  • 0

#1072 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0222 AM

General Berger of the US Marine Corp visits HMS Queen Elizabeth. Its interesting to note they have a 'scoreboard' in the hangar decks as well.

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz

EIxj5f_X0AACKnm.jpg


  • 0

#1073 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,334 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0246 AM

 

The potential for all of a nation's air force pilots to be qualified for operations off of its own or allied carriers, not just an elite naval aviator few, would be an interesting argument for STOVL, particularly between alliance partners.

 

That Japan and South Korea are now looking at Carriers equipped with F35B, certainly indicates there is a lot of potential for cross decking. I dont think the political benefits of something like that have been adequately explored.

 

 

That potential is limited in an either Japan or South Korea cross decking. The old narrative puts the blame for even new current affairs on Japan and overlooks the details and South Korean domestic situation. Its a terrible Achilles Heel to ideas of multilateral cooperation that include both Japan and South Korea. In late 2017 when the US navy parked three carriers off from North Korean shores, the South Koreans were unwilling to join formation that included Japanese warships. So the US had to for two sets of large naval warship formations in the Sea of Japan. One with USN and JMSDF and the other with USN and ROKN. I would like to see K2s, M1s, and Type 90s training together in South Korea.. Additionally, as I'm sure you are aware of, but I have been paying rather close attention to the South China Sea and what countries have made known the presence of their warships in that sea in the name of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Those countries include the US, Japan, Australia, India, the UK, and even France. But the ROK, no, not once. I even recall Vietnam was requesting South Korea to send warships down there. No response.


  • 0

#1074 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0252 AM

Its really very sad. If Japan and South Korea ever got their act together, China would be shitting itself.


  • 0

#1075 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,334 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0317 AM

Its really very sad. If Japan and South Korea ever got their act together, China would be shitting itself.

 

Well yes, but again, South Korea wouldn't even need to cooperate with Japan in order to put out its own voice into the South China Sea. And they have developed high level of economic and investment relation with Vietnam, yet still, no South Korea presence in the South China Sea. They simply do not. I'm not trying to dig dirt on South Korea simply out of a some sort of hidden pro-Japanese feelings. It is what it is. South Korea has been unwilling to go against the grains of PRC interest except if its related to the Korean peninsula such as scrambling fighters to any PRC military aircraft approaching South Korean ADIZ or some US-ROK alliance matter concerning the DPRK such as the THAAD deployment.


Edited by JasonJ, 08 November 2019 - 0317 AM.

  • 0

#1076 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0326 AM

All very interesting, thanks for that JJ.

 

Here is an interesting article, saying the procurement of the carrier support ships has been stalled, possibly to reflag them as warships so we can dodge the EU procurement rules.....

https://www.plymouth...ild-hms-3509809


  • 0

#1077 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,017 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0511 AM

Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it.
 
There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here.
 
The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC.....


B is heavier, slower, carries less fuel, doesn't have a gun, less stealthy, more expensive to acquire and operate than A. I really don't see any land user buying B. We are talking about 20 to 30% cut on force levels with B. Pretty much nobody is willing to take such cut from already sparse numbers just to gain STOVL.
B is of course impressive for STOVL fighter and I believe will be acquired to more navies for STOVL carrier capability like Harrier was, it's not like there is real competition in the niche. But I doubt land users are interested, just like with Harriers.
  • 0

#1078 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0528 AM

 

Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it.
 
There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here.
 
The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC.....


B is heavier, slower, carries less fuel, doesn't have a gun, less stealthy, more expensive to acquire and operate than A. I really don't see any land user buying B. We are talking about 20 to 30% cut on force levels with B. Pretty much nobody is willing to take such cut from already sparse numbers just to gain STOVL.
B is of course impressive for STOVL fighter and I believe will be acquired to more navies for STOVL carrier capability like Harrier was, it's not like there is real competition in the niche. But I doubt land users are interested, just like with Harriers.

 

F35B can still carry a gun, the RAF website indicates this. The only question remains whether, like the Harrier, whether we will chose to procure it.

https://www.raf.mod....-35b-lightning/

 

Its certainly more expensive to operate than an A, but quite clearly less expensive to operate than a C when you take into considering the equipment and personnel to operate CATOBAR equipment. As we are keen to operate from a ship, the difference of the B to the C is the important bit. For one thing its lighter, and its never going to be beat up by arrested landings, with all the costs that brings to an aircraft.

 

Ive personally read nothing that says its less stealthy or slower, but if you can provide a link Ill read it with interest.


  • 0

#1079 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,011 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0654 AM

A = internal gun with 182 rounds. B and C = podded gun with 220 rounds.


  • 0

#1080 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0749 AM

So even if we bought the C model and a conventional carrier, we would still have had gun pods.

 

Ill admit the range be an issue in naval warfare, but its not as if they would be incapable of fitting for buddy refuelling.


  • 0