Well, it's a good job that our new aircraft carriers weren't locked into using F-35Bs then, wasn't it?
Possible cut to British F-35 order considered before Parliament
Rising costs might force the UK to reduce its order of F-35 fighter jets, the House of Commons has been told. Lieutenant General Mark Poffley, chief of British military capability, told the Commons Defence Committee that he was "sympathetic" to the idea of reducing Britain's planned order of 138 F-35B jets. The short takeoff …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 18:43 GMT Aqua Marina
Or even better pull the English Electric Lightning out of mothballs. These things didn't need a runway, they could be launched vertically like a rocket. You could literally push it off the edge of the carrier, throttle up and it would be flying of into the distance before it would have a chance to splash into the ocean below.
I remember reading that when it went ballistic, it was the only plane that caught up with the US's SR71 blackbird and got a missile lock.
They don't make em like this anymore!
-
Friday 24th November 2017 15:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Aqua Marina: Although the Lightning had, even by today's standards, very good altitude and speed performance it could not match an SR-71 in either altitude or speed. Wikipedia reckons that the max Alt was 88,000 ft but only on a ballistic trajectory i.e. that alt wasn't sustained.
However, in one of the accounts in 'The Lightning Boys' (ISBN 978-1-908117-15-1) the pilot appears to have achieved level flight at 87,800 ft at which point "I took stock of my situation. The stick was now firmly on the backstops, I had no further elevator control other than to lower the nose. The Ailerons, interestingly, were still very responsive. Both reheats had remained alight until I touched the throttles. When I rolled the aircraft and looked down vertically..."
Heh :)
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 13:15 GMT imanidiot
Still not too late
The ships aren't in full service yet. It's still possible to eat a giant loss and put cats and traps on them. It won't be pretty, but it's going to have to be done anyway if they are to be of any service in the future. The F-35 program is facing more and more opposition in the US as well and it's not at all impossible the yanks will pull the plug on the program. If that happens, the price for any remaining customers will probably double or triple.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 13:30 GMT phuzz
Re: Still not too late
Building a new ship would mean more work for the shipyards, and therefore (the politicians hope) continued votes, so it's not completely out of the range of possibility.
Maybe we should sell these carriers to someone that's committed to the F-35B (the US Marines?) and build some proper ones with catapults on. Sure, it's a ridiculously massive waste of money, but we've known that right from the start.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 14:09 GMT rh587
Re: Still not too late
I thought it was a structural issue for the cats? The amount of bulkhead strengthening, miles of pipework for the steam...
No steam - it was proposed to use the American's new EMALS cats, but they were considered a bit prototypical when the carriers were being specced, despite that fact that (according to Lewis Page IIRC), the Yanks even offered to underwrite any development issues with it (they were pretty committed to making it work since their next-gen carriers are designed around it).
But we didn't. And then it would have been expensive to retrofit the electrics needed (and possibly bulkheads, I don't know), but certainly not as bad as having to plumb in a large steam system.
As it turns out, it wasn't too tricky to implement and the Gerald R. Ford is now in service as the first EMALS vessel.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 19:51 GMT kmac499
Re: Still not too late
As well as Bulkheads they would need a few thousand kettles to raise the steam. BIg Lizzie is Diesel electric.
Which is also why the electric catapult launch was tricky, The new US super carriers have massive amounts of nuclear electric generation on board, They were designed from day one to be fighting power stations that could have upgrades loaded onto the hulls over the years.
Lizzie would need a bigger battery or a very long extension lead back to blighty. Maybe in the Men in Sheds brigade could come up with a supecapacitor system it might work.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:49 GMT Deckard_C
Re: Still not too late
The new US carriers actually use large flywheels connected to motor/generators to store the energy for launching the aircraft with EMALS anyway, so would use the same system. It's just how long it takes to spinup the flywheels for the next launch. The US carriers have four catapults and they wanted a high launch rate. Lizzie would just of had two and have less aircraft to get in the air.
When you look into what is involved with EMALS you start thinking steam isn't all that bad after all, more so if just launching one type of aircraft. Not that I can really comment.
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 14:38 GMT rh587
Re: Still not too late
When you look into what is involved with EMALS you start thinking steam isn't all that bad after all, more so if just launching one type of aircraft. Not that I can really comment.
Well, that's the problem for the Yanks - they're running a variety of fixed wing, from heavy bombed up strike aircraft through to small C2/E2 support aircraft and the steam system reputedly isn't very adaptable. There's "Go" and "Go" with a small amount of throttling. EMALS allows tailored launch profiles for each airframe, so lighter aircraft don't need to be stressed by high-energy launches designed to support heavier aircraft.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 22:07 GMT Deckard_C
Re: Still not too late
"In service" seems to be of of those strange terms, more it's been handed over to the Navy. As IOC isn't until 2020 and first deployment is to be 2022. Last I heard they was still having issues with the Cats and fully loaded F/A-18 but that might be fixed now, also the traps alone are now costing $1.3 billion. Bargin at a construction cost of $12.9B and $3.7B in R&D. Good to know the UK isn't along in messing things up.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 15:21 GMT x 7
Re: Still not too late
Actually....the initial plan was to use the Anglo-French (mainly Anglo in design) Converteam EMCAT system, but the Yanks didn't like us using something that wasn't American so tried undercutting on price with EMALS despite EMCAT looking the better product. Once the UK had opted for EMALS, Converteam got sold to GE of the USA, who - at the behest of the US Government, spiked the project. That gave the US a monopoly on catapault launch systems, and also military ship electric propulsion systems.
And then they revealed that EMALS had severe issues and would be delayed........
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 16:17 GMT Scroticus Canis
Re: Still not too late - yes it is.
Unfortunately there is nowhere to install the massive boilers and fuel bunkers to generate steam for the catapults or generators and batteries for electromagnetic catapults (if they could make one work).
For what this debacle has cost a new factory to make revamped versions of the Harrier would have been cheaper.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 15:33 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Still not too late
'I thought the Yanks had been having problems with the STOL F35B's melting the decks? '
Not as such, the exhaust is warmer than a Harrier's but it was predicted and alterations to the deck covering made to combat it before the first embarkation. Of course the F-35 doesn't have its exhaust impinging on the deck for a particularly long period probably less than 30 seconds during the landing. The V-22 on the other hand has to have its exhaust pointing at the decks the whole time which I believe may be more of a problem.
'Are the new UK carriers fitted with extra heat resistant decks?'
Yes, well as I understand it there's a special coating on the landing areas.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 15:29 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Still not too late
'RATO Typhoon
the technology exists from Buccaneer days, though it wasn't used for ship launches'
AIUI the problem with a marinised Typhoon is less the launching and more the landing back on again. Essentially the landing attitude is such that on finals you wouldn't be able to see the aircraft carrier, added to that the landing gear (and airframe) isn't designed to take the impact of a no-flare landing*. Strengthening the aircraft to take a no-flare landing gets you half way to a new aircraft, so you're probably looking at a decade long development programme with no guarantee of success.
*Land based aircraft flare just above the runway to cushion the impact, carrier aircraft don't because they're aiming for a small area of the deck to ensure the hook catches on a cable. The flare introduces sufficient ambiguity into the landing area that the rate of go-rounds would be unacceptable.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 16:52 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Still not too late
'Ok perhaps not, but should be poss to knock up an automatic landing system now anyway.'
BAe did propose something along those lines, along with an automated flare to make the landing point predictable without having to strengthen the gear. The question is, do you actually trust BAe to produce something like that on time and cost?
Not to mention a Typhoon wouldn't be able to get off the deck with as big a war-load as an F-35B, so you need more aircraft for the same effect.
Personally I think we should have gone with catapults and arrestor gear, but that argument wasn't made sufficiently well in about 1998. Talking about it now doesn't get us anywhere.
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 13:48 GMT hoola
Re: Still not too late
I don't know all the costs, but some of the missiles are awfully expensive. Couldn't they just put a web cam, a few servos and an action man in the cockpit and go for a one-way trip. These is so much electronics anyway you probably don't even need the remote control. You need less fuel, don't care if it buggers up the airframe too much on take off as long as it flies and have no landing issues. At the moment the best use appears to be to put a trebuchet on the deck and lob the aircraft and or missiles at your opponent. No pilot training and minimal fuel required, just enough to make a nice bang!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 11:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Still not too late
I believe the original idea was that the carriers would fly the Sea Harrier until whatever replaced them became available. That was why there was much talk early on of them being designed so they could be easily converted to use cats and traps, allowing the RN to opt for the F35C or any other carrier-capable fighter if they so wished.
Whether the government at the time simply painted a misleading picture isn't clear, but it turned out not to be true and BAE had designed the carriers from the outset to fly only STOVL aircraft. Then the Cameron government came along in 2010 and scrapped the Harriers to save money, apparently only discovering at that point that it would cost too much (according to BAE) to adapt the carriers to fly anything else.
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 14:31 GMT rh587
Re: Still not too late
Agree, scrap the F35 order, take the hit on retro fitting and purchase some F18 Super Hornets.
Broadly speaking, that is precisely the reason BAE neglected to do any actual work on the "for but not with" Cats requirement, so that when the incoming Government decided they wanted to do it, there was no chance of BAE losing F35B orders in favour of a Boeing Super Hornets (which our Navy Pilots have been keeping their skillset alive on in the US, and which they apparently like very much!).
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 17:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Still not too late
David Cameron announced he was going to have the things converted to cats and traps when he was PM because of the problems with the F-35B programme and its escalating costs; apparently, being able to modify the boats like that relatively easily was in the contract. He back-tracked when he was told the cost was prohibitive.
I still don't understand why Blair's lot thought it was a good idea to order two huge expensive carriers flying aeroplanes that hadn't yet been developed, using a V/STOL system which had at the time not shown to be practical in service.
Call me Mr Silly if you like, but at the time I couldn't help thinking "Erm, why not much smaller carriers, kit 'em out with modern Sea Harriers derived from the Harrier II - with some helicopters, and lots of drones, for the anti-sub and general purpose lookout role."
Yes, such drones had at that time not been deployed in service as far as I know, but developing a new Sea Harrier and suitable drones would have been an awful lot cheaper than the F-35B programme was predicted to cost even without the inevitable cost over-runs
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:00 GMT John Smith 19
"and it's not at all impossible the yanks will pull the plug on the program. "
Bu***hit.
Far too many members of the Con-gress jave beem "persuaded" of the programmes vital importance to national
porkdefense.That programme will run for decades.
LM has guaranteed orders, upgrade programmes, spares, etc.
Who cares if it doesn't work?
-
Monday 27th November 2017 02:18 GMT skeptical i
Re: "and it's not at all impossible the yanks will pull the plug on the program. "
re: "Far too many members of the Con-gress have been 'persuaded' of the programme's vital importance to national pork defense."
I don't know if the congresscritters have swallowed the nashnull deefence kool-aid, but the creators of the F-35 boondoggle were very careful to ensure that some factory in each state made some of the bits of the F-35, and with the economy still swirling the bowl it is unlikely any politician would spike a program that creates/ maintains jobs back home (and most manufacturing jobs pay more than the cash- register- punching service sector jobs, to twist the knife a little harder). Mind, these are also the same congresscritters who see food stamps and other social benefit programs as the work of the Devil his own self (welfare for corporations good, welfare for individuals bad).
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 14:35 GMT rh587
Re: Still not too late
BAE quoted doing the job: It's cheaper to build new ships
Or, to flesh it out.
BAE told them it would be cheaper to build new ships because they were afraid of losing F35B orders in favour of Super Hornets if they did the conversion. And they can pull that shit because what are we going to do - pick up those lumps of hull and take them to some other defence contractor to finish the job?
BAE have a monopoly, which means they can basically tell lies if it suits them and we've nowhere to go.
-
Friday 24th November 2017 18:12 GMT John Smith 19
"BAE have a monopoly,..they can basically tell lies if it suits them and we've nowhere to go."
Don't call it a monopoly.
Call it a "National Champion."
That's what the civil servants in the MoD called it when they were encouraging/cajoling/strong arming the various mergers that made it up.
Which is why thethe CEO is as far as I know the only head of a major war corp that's got on demand access to a head of state, in the form of the Prime Minister.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:57 GMT HKmk23
First sensible comment I have seen.
No one seems to think of the future.....all thoughts are based on past wars and actions. The tank is obsolete due to the attack helicopter and they are all obsolete due to the drone. So if drones cannot be launched from the soon to be obsolete fleets of oil tankers (think electric cars) then these easily destroyed aircraft carriers could serve perhaps as mobile launch pads. The drones of course are controlled from thousands of miles away so no pilots necessary!
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 03:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: First sensible comment I have seen.
The" tank obsolete due to the attack helicopter" statement is an interesting point as it also has the counterpoint that "you cannot hold land with attack helicopter". Also they can be taken out with shoulder mounted munitions and don't fare well when there are fighter jets around. In warfare you can normal find an argument for most X being redundant because of Y.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 13:31 GMT Spanners
Why cats?
Do they need catapults? I am sure I heard someone say that the Saab Sea Grippen doesn't need them. Getting a non-US aircraft would not only save money but it would reassert our sovereignty.
This would keep our xenophobes happy too. Sweden are reputed to be open to reconsidering their EU membership too.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 13:52 GMT Salestard
Re: Why cats?
"Hello? BAe? Yes, we'd like you to build us a fleet of new carrier-borne strike aircraft. Already got the designs, so no development required. We might want you add a mounting for a TomTom or similar, plus some USB charging ports.... What's that? £112m each, delivery by 2023? Bargain! We'll order 400 and expect to receive 17 within the next decade"
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 14:52 GMT Peter2
Re: Why cats?
I still think we should seriously consider digging up the design for the Sea Hornet (a development on the famous Mosquito) and build a bunch. If BAE plays silly buggers then do what we did in WW2 and subcontract the build of everything bar the engines to furniture makers.
The pluses is that it's a cheap war tested design with 4 times the range of the F35 and a semi similar payload. It'd also fly off smaller carriers that won't fly modern jet aircraft such as our commando carriers that currently can only carry helicopters, the cost per flying hour is impressively low and it can remain on station circling waiting to drop bombs for longer than the F35 can fly before running out of fuel. (and these abilities are war tested)
The minuses is that it's slower, and isin't stealthy. And frankly from our experiance over the last decade or so with Iraq & Afganistan that doesn't really matter to somebody who's idea of anti aircraft equipment is an AK47...
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 15:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Why cats?
If BAE plays silly buggers then do what we did in WW2 and subcontract the build of everything bar the engines to furniture makers
You've not encountered the business practices and out-turn prices of people like Howdens, Magnet, Sharps, I see.
I believe they have all adopted the "defence contractor" business model.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 16:41 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Isn't stealthy
'Actually, since it's made out of wood, it would have some stealth characteristics.'
Unfortunately the main one would be that radar would be able to see all the lovely internal metallic components with their corner reflectors.
Also there's the slight issue that they tend to de-laminate and rot in damp environments. Which is a problem if you plan on using them for more than a decade.
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 17:51 GMT Chris G
Re: Why cats?
I think it may be wise to stay away from furniture manufacturers, the majority of whose furniture is largely made of chip board or MDF. Particularly in a marine environment, having the fuselage and airframe suck up hundreds of litres of water and then swelling up spectacularly, may affect their flight envelope.
Otherwise I am all for a resurrection of the Mosquito.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:25 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Why cats?
"The minuses is that it's slower, and isin't stealthy."
Even when going up against more advanced opponents, steath's advantages are overhyped.
It only works from the front and then only out to 30 degrees off the boresight. Networked radar systems can paint it from behind for a SAM to intercept from the front. This is what was done to that F117 over Bosnia.
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 08:49 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Why cats?
'It only works from the front and then only out to 30 degrees off the boresight.'
Not true, stealth works where ever you design it to work. Generally the idea is to design the object so the radar reflections are in a known direction, e.g. the 2, 6, 8, and 10 o'clock when viewed from above, you then plan the mission based on ensuring those spikes don't go over a radar close enough to give a usable return. The F-117 shoot down occurred after the bomb bay was opened which increases the radar signature in all sorts of directions, plus a certain amount of complacency on the part of the USAF.
The question is would you rather go up against a modern SAM and AA threat in a stealth aircraft, or a non-stealth aircraft?
-
-
Friday 24th November 2017 11:34 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Why cats?
'Surely if you are only in possession of 48 airframes, you would not want to risk an F35-B attacking targets defended by modern SAM and AA defences?'
Depends on the nature of the threat, but generally you'd risk what you need to win the war, then deal with the consequences afterwards.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 14:42 GMT Peter2
Re: subcontract the build of everything bar the engines to furniture makers
The question is would you rather go up against a modern SAM and AA threat in a stealth aircraft, or a non-stealth aircraft?
Well, after the first 2 weeks there won't be much of a modern SAM and AA threat after the Supression of Enemy Air Defence part of smashing whatever country up. Both are largely dealt with by missiles anyway so it doesn't really matter that much what your launching them from.
The major advantage is that you store far more below decks as flat-packs, and assemble them on the flight deck...
In WW2 the americans did actually do more or less this to replace losses.
DFS struggle to make a sofa that doesn't fall apart after six months. I'm not sure I'd trust them to build a plane.
The lack of longevity of the De Havilland Mosquito & Hornet suddenly makes horrifying sense. Maybe get real carpenters doing the job or make them out of metal? I'm sure some CNC shops would be happy for the work...
-
Friday 24th November 2017 11:31 GMT SkippyBing
Re: subcontract the build of everything bar the engines to furniture makers
'Well, after the first 2 weeks there won't be much of a modern SAM and AA threat after the Supression of Enemy Air Defence part of smashing whatever country up.'
That's great, but you need something for the first 2 weeks, which is when the F-35 operates as a stealthy aircraft, once the SEAD has taken place it can operate in non-stealth mode and load up with around 20,000lbs worth of stores. Which is about 2/3rds the max all up mass of a Harrier, i.e. including the aircraft.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 14:25 GMT Nik 2
UK-headquartered multinational BAE Systems builds about 15 per cent of the F-35, it is not clear whether this is done in the UK or through BAE's American subsidiary.
Both - there are very substantial bits of aeroplane built in the UK, but there are also BAE Systems Inc (as it's called) elements to the F35.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 16:15 GMT PlacidCasual
Charlie Foxtrot All Round
This whole debacle goes back to the 1997 Strategic Defense Review when we chose to build gas turbine, cheap to build, expensive to run, low capability carriers over nuclear powered high capital, low running cost, catobar carriers that would had a reasonable choice of cheap and proven planes to fly off the damn things whilst we waited for the F-35 to sort itself out.
We'll end up with no sodding planes and use the things as replacements for HMS Ocean.
Still we're only spending £50Bn a year on the country's credit card interest payments. Heaven help us when the low interest introductory period runs out on that :-(
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:30 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Charlie Foxtrot All Round
"when we chose to build gas turbine, cheap to build, expensive to run, low capability carriers over nuclear powered high capital, low running cost, catobar carriers"
It doesn't really matter WHAT is below decks driving the whirry bits.
Carriers are obsolete, they just haven't noticed yet. The DF-21D and DF-26 have seen to that.
Just like battleships after 1932 - and the RN insisted on continuing to build them right up to the outbreak of WW2
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 08:40 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Charlie Foxtrot All Round
'Just like battleships after 1932 - and the RN insisted on continuing to build them right up to the outbreak of WW2'
As did everyone else, and a surprising number of them made it through WW2 so I'm not sure your point is valid.
'Carriers are obsolete, they just haven't noticed yet. The DF-21D and DF-26 have seen to that.'
People keep saying that as if potentially being sunk in an all out war has somehow never been an option before. Soldiers are vulnerable to bullets, we still have them, tanks are vulnerable to missiles, we still have them, etc. etc. Having a missile that can sink a carrier isn't new or unusual, you still have to target it and navies plan and develop tactics to counter that this all the time. For a long range missile such as DF-21 that would need 3rd party targeting the first stage is defeating the 3rd party's ability to accurately report your position.
-
-
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 17:04 GMT michael cadoux
Has anyone noticed that when (or do I mean if?) our aircraft carriers finally get some F 35s, the Pratt & Whitney engines will be serviced in ... go on, have a guess ... yes, NATO country ... no, they'll be serviced in ... Turkey. Friendly, stable Turkey. Think about the possible geopolitics a few years hence when Erdogan either blows his top and stomps out of "the west", or is deposed by somebody even worse, take your pick. YFG.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:06 GMT SkippyBing
'yes, NATO country ... no, they'll be serviced in ... Turkey. Friendly, stable Turkey'
Err.. Turkey is a NATO country, although god knows how. I'd be more worried about the US nukes that may or may not still be forward deployed there. Besides by the time we get the aircraft Norway and the Netherlands should also have engine servicing facilities on line.
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 18:15 GMT OzBob
Forget the choice of our airplanes for the moment
Did anything think about providing the capability for allowing our allies to launch and land non-F35 aircraft on these carriers?
"Sorry, F18 with a short fuel load we can't capture you, try swimming for the nearest arrestor cable carrier about 100 miles east of here"
-
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 20:04 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Forget the choice of our airplanes for the moment
Well we've managed without that capability for the last 4 decades so I'm guessing it hasn't been seen as a vital requirement. It would be a planning f*** up of epic proportions for the aircraft to get in that position in the first place, the chance of being near another carrier at the same time must be infinitesimal.
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 00:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
F-35B--the "B" stands for boondoggle!!
Yes, I am waiting for the act in this comedy where the U.S. Marine Corps sells Britain back the now thoroughly worn-out Harriers for twice what the U.S. paid for them when Obama was in office. Then Britain finds out that through some combination of inept negotiation and bureaucratic oversight that the planes were purchased, but not the screws that hold them together.
This will probably be discovered when the Harriers arrive back in Britain in a series of open wheely-bins full of random parts.
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 01:35 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: F-35B--the "B" stands for boondoggle!!
"This will probably be discovered when the Harriers arrive back in Britain in a series of open wheely-bins full of random parts."
They've probably converted them to left-hand drive anyway, so we'd have to contract BAE at some exorbitant price to convert back to the right-hand drive.
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 08:29 GMT SkippyBing
Re: F-35B--the "B" stands for boondoggle!!
' U.S. Marine Corps sells Britain back the now thoroughly worn-out Harriers'
Don't worry, the USMC haven't put a single flying hour on them*. They have stripped them for spares though so they're not exactly in a fly away condition anymore.
*I believe there were sufficient differences between the AV-8B and the GR-9 that integrating them into the USMC fleet would have been a massive headache. i.e. you'd need a bespoke supply chain for the GR-9, which even if you only had certain squadrons fly them would be a PITA. So it was simpler to use them to increase their holding of spare to extend the service life of the active fleet.
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 00:07 GMT rtb61
The Real Death Of Attack Carriers
Best way to attack a carrier battle fleet. Get yourself a submarine, put a nuke on board. Sneak within nuke range of the targeted fleet and then surface and proudly announce to that fleet, that you have a an nuke on board and of the submarine receives a sufficient shock, say a warhead designed to sink the submarine the nuke will detonate and your move mate.
For shits and giggles when you park you seaborne nuclear mine alongside the very expensive attack carrier, start trolling the carrier by firing torpedoes at the escorting vessels, they can always commit suicide by retaliating.
The solution to that attack, scatter you fleet to safety, then abandon you attack carrier and then target the submarine, you lose your carrier but save the fleet, well, until the next suicideing submarine finds them, see the sub and killing it will kill you.
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 12:52 GMT EnviableOne
Re: The Real Death Of Attack Carriers
The modern carrier group is a Defence in depth model
ASW frigates surround the fleet outside torpedo range, these are covered by AAW destroyers which protect the entire group from above, allied with air defence from the carrier air arm. beneath the surface are several hunter killer/fleet subs designed to protect against an incursion. C&C is done from the Carrier and this is all drilled and co-ordinated, with all the compoinents moving as one unit at the speed of the slowest.
this can then deliver a strike wing to anywhere in the litorial region (from edge of international waters to 200miles inland)
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 00:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Its utterly ridiculous that we bought this plane without the ability to service it here. Defence should be about defending the country not about greasing the palms of private companies - who all too often operate a near cartel. The moment there is any serious conflict you can bet that these firms would be either nationalised or the gravy train halted.
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 13:23 GMT SkippyBing
We have the option of servicing it here ourselves, as Israel have chosen to do with theirs. It's just we'd have to pay a few billion to replicate servicing facilities that are available in friendly countries. So you'd have to justify that request for funding and/or sacrifice something else to pay for it.
-
-
Thursday 23rd November 2017 13:28 GMT EnviableOne
I've said this for a while but the F35 project is a lemon, the A and C are heavily compromised by having to accommodate the nesacary adjustments for the B, with the convention that the B orders are considerably smaller and considerably different to the A&C the current thinking is they may scrap the B all together, leaving the compromises in the A&C frames making them inefficient.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 24th November 2017 18:18 GMT John Smith 19
People make steam catapults sound very hard.
Because they historically derived the steam from the boilers driving the steam turbines to drive the propellers.
But gas turbines can generate a lot of electricity.
There are such things as electric "flash" boilers that essentially aim to run so hot, with so little water that it all goes more or less directly to steam.
I looked into this for steam cars and "fireless" locomotives, both of which are basically big pressurized, insulated tanks. Modern composites could operate up to about 390c, which can deliver substantial pressure.