QE Class Carrier - BBC Article
Discussion
HarryW said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
The admirals will get their aircraft-less carriers and no doubt it will be someone else to blame as they steam around impotently in the future.
Interesting new rumours doing the rounds which if there's any truth in might mean they won't be aircraft-less 
Given recent events, the sensible decision now would actually be to just order new build Super Bugs, and forget F35C completely.
aeropilot said:
Given recent events, the sensible decision now would actually be to just order new build Super Bugs, and forget F35C completely.
PW said:
"In the Event" again - I think I saw somewhere that the correct response is "Remain Indoors"
Valid question - the bit I'm stuck on is that only a very small number of all the countries with the means and apparent call for them seem to have determined that aircraft carriers are part of the answer to it.
Is everyone else headed for a fall, or do they know something we don't?
Erm, yeah, sort of like why we have car or home insurance, 'in the event'.Valid question - the bit I'm stuck on is that only a very small number of all the countries with the means and apparent call for them seem to have determined that aircraft carriers are part of the answer to it.
Is everyone else headed for a fall, or do they know something we don't?
You're not seriously suggesting we should wait until something kicks off and then build these things?
aeropilot said:
HarryW said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
The admirals will get their aircraft-less carriers and no doubt it will be someone else to blame as they steam around impotently in the future.
Interesting new rumours doing the rounds which if there's any truth in might mean they won't be aircraft-less Given recent events, the sensible decision now would actually be to just order new build Super Bugs, and forget F35C completely.
I feel I should mention that while the airgroup is an integral part of the carrier because of the way that Britain (which is the most retarted way in the world I will add) conducts operations of the air group it is an entirely different subject.
Simply put the RN will have the carriers built, but unlike other countries throughout the world the aircraft are operated from the joint squadron. Which has a heavy RAF input due to the RAF regularly putting forwards the point that "no one else know how to conduct air combat".
Yet everywhere else in the world the airgroup on a carrier is conducted by the FAA and the FAA only.
So we have 2 things to consider.
1) Do we need carriers? Should we build them.
I would say yes.
2) If we are building them what plane do we use considering that the RAF will partly fund that squadron.
Hence we hit the problem. Sea harrier is gone, Typhoon doesn't operate of a carrier and nor does Tornado. So we have to buy another aircraft. The RAF will want one that compliments Typhoon and the RAF strategy. The RN will want an aircraft that compliments it's strategy...
These can be conflicting goals and cause no end of problems.
To be honest the Super Hornet would be a good buy. With it's option for buddy tanking, the growler for EW and it's considerable capabilities at reasonable cost it is a very good carrier. The 2 seat version is increadably impressive in the ability to split fire and targets between the observer/rear and the pilot thus allowing it to multi-task more effectively than a single seat swing role.
At this moment in time the F/A-18 costs $55 million, the F35C costs $139.5 million but I suspect that will go over $150 million.
Personally I think instead of 60-80 F35C we should go for 120 F/A-18's supported by a group of 8 Hawkeye. The purchase can start now, with training on US air groups (and French for Hawkeye) being conducted immediately.
We will save a large amount of money on that and that money can be invested elsewhere or given to the RAF to do what they will (enough for them to purchase 30-40 F35A's).
At 65,000 tons the QE class CAN operate at least 50 aircraft standard without any problems. Do the math on the hanger size with relation to American hangers and on the deck size and it works out. Yet they are being done to only 40 aircraft which is a waste of their potential. In a surge situation you might be able to get closer to 60 aircraft....
120 F/A-18's allows 50 to each carrier, with 20 in reserve or for training. 50 on the carriers will give reserves and spares to enable a constant number of 30 plus 6 growlers deployed with the carrier as standard. 4 Hawkeye, 2 Merlin for CSAR & SAR and 4-6 ASW Helicopters.
I mean you could even take 8 of those in reserve and put them in the Falklands. Enabling easy rotation with the FAA when required (carrier can deploy to South Atlantic on exercise every so often to stop Argentinian sabre ratling) AND free up 4 Typhoon for more important RAF duties.
The more I look at this the more it makes sense. I don't see why they where not designed from the start with CATS and TRAPS with the aim to buy F/A-18 Super Hornet. Sure it is not a 5th generation top of the line fighter... but it is a good solid multi role fighter. Very versatile with Tanker, Multi role fighter and EW roles already demonstrated. It is cheap enough to bolster numbers. More importantly it is probably good enough.. History has proven time and time again that good enough is the nemesis of the best due to quantity factoring in.
If the RN decides after having learnt how to use a large CTOL carrier and its operation that deep penetration stealth is required then things like the X-47B and other UCV's are being developed and could provide long range, stealthy deep penetration.
One wonders if they had followed this path if we would be approaching the in service date of the QE with the POW well under way and with the project delivered on time and close enough to budget to allow consideration for a bit of love being sent the way of the RFA, submarine fleet or escort fleet.
Definitely carrier pro, we need them. However I do think this has been done half arsed.
Hell F/A-18 and a solid CATOBAR operation design from the start along with no umming and arring about air group could have possible allowed for 3 carriers given that they could end up costing almost 50-75% more than initally planned... something to consider.
Simply put the RN will have the carriers built, but unlike other countries throughout the world the aircraft are operated from the joint squadron. Which has a heavy RAF input due to the RAF regularly putting forwards the point that "no one else know how to conduct air combat".
Yet everywhere else in the world the airgroup on a carrier is conducted by the FAA and the FAA only.
So we have 2 things to consider.
1) Do we need carriers? Should we build them.
I would say yes.
2) If we are building them what plane do we use considering that the RAF will partly fund that squadron.
Hence we hit the problem. Sea harrier is gone, Typhoon doesn't operate of a carrier and nor does Tornado. So we have to buy another aircraft. The RAF will want one that compliments Typhoon and the RAF strategy. The RN will want an aircraft that compliments it's strategy...
These can be conflicting goals and cause no end of problems.
To be honest the Super Hornet would be a good buy. With it's option for buddy tanking, the growler for EW and it's considerable capabilities at reasonable cost it is a very good carrier. The 2 seat version is increadably impressive in the ability to split fire and targets between the observer/rear and the pilot thus allowing it to multi-task more effectively than a single seat swing role.
At this moment in time the F/A-18 costs $55 million, the F35C costs $139.5 million but I suspect that will go over $150 million.
Personally I think instead of 60-80 F35C we should go for 120 F/A-18's supported by a group of 8 Hawkeye. The purchase can start now, with training on US air groups (and French for Hawkeye) being conducted immediately.
We will save a large amount of money on that and that money can be invested elsewhere or given to the RAF to do what they will (enough for them to purchase 30-40 F35A's).
At 65,000 tons the QE class CAN operate at least 50 aircraft standard without any problems. Do the math on the hanger size with relation to American hangers and on the deck size and it works out. Yet they are being done to only 40 aircraft which is a waste of their potential. In a surge situation you might be able to get closer to 60 aircraft....
120 F/A-18's allows 50 to each carrier, with 20 in reserve or for training. 50 on the carriers will give reserves and spares to enable a constant number of 30 plus 6 growlers deployed with the carrier as standard. 4 Hawkeye, 2 Merlin for CSAR & SAR and 4-6 ASW Helicopters.
I mean you could even take 8 of those in reserve and put them in the Falklands. Enabling easy rotation with the FAA when required (carrier can deploy to South Atlantic on exercise every so often to stop Argentinian sabre ratling) AND free up 4 Typhoon for more important RAF duties.
The more I look at this the more it makes sense. I don't see why they where not designed from the start with CATS and TRAPS with the aim to buy F/A-18 Super Hornet. Sure it is not a 5th generation top of the line fighter... but it is a good solid multi role fighter. Very versatile with Tanker, Multi role fighter and EW roles already demonstrated. It is cheap enough to bolster numbers. More importantly it is probably good enough.. History has proven time and time again that good enough is the nemesis of the best due to quantity factoring in.
If the RN decides after having learnt how to use a large CTOL carrier and its operation that deep penetration stealth is required then things like the X-47B and other UCV's are being developed and could provide long range, stealthy deep penetration.
One wonders if they had followed this path if we would be approaching the in service date of the QE with the POW well under way and with the project delivered on time and close enough to budget to allow consideration for a bit of love being sent the way of the RFA, submarine fleet or escort fleet.
Definitely carrier pro, we need them. However I do think this has been done half arsed.
Hell F/A-18 and a solid CATOBAR operation design from the start along with no umming and arring about air group could have possible allowed for 3 carriers given that they could end up costing almost 50-75% more than initally planned... something to consider.
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board? One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Does that equate to air combat and ground attack?It might be argued that fleet defence could be covered by ship-to-air missiles and phalanx guns.
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board?
One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
Not necessarily. One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
The F/A-18 is an effective multi role fighter. With both a single seat version and a dual seat version. The single seat has longer range due to more fuel space and I would imagine a better thrust to weight ratio.
The dual seat has slightly less range (nothing dramatic) and probably less thrust and weight however it compensates with the advantages of having an advanced two seat combat system.
Coupled with the Growler as well as Hawkeye for AWACS, as well as Merlin or Wildcat Helos and you have a balanced combat group.
As I said the only real problem would be deep penetration with stealthy aircraft. However the X-47 B is a better choice than the F35C for that role due to having a range in excess of 2,500nm and still being able to carry 2 internally loaded Storm shadow cruise missiles etc. With an E2D hawkeye controlling it the X-47B would be a fantastic addition to the airgroup after 2020. That would have given it 4-6 years training in CTOL carrier operations.
Remember the Growler, Super hornet single seat, Super hornet dual seat are different versions.. Not too disimilar to the FA.2, GR.7, GR.9
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board?
One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
Super Hornet can do both with ease, as well as other stuff as mentioned, Growler and Buddy-Buddy tanking (as the Bucc could do many years ago as well).One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
In USN use the one basic F-18 airframe (in single seat, two seat & Growler versions) has replaced the F-14 Tomcat, A-6 Intruder, KA-6D, EA-6B Prowler and S-3 Viking.
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board?
One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
If one plane is good enough for both roles, it makes sense to only have one if possible. One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board?
One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
Nope you don't need 2 different platforms these days for attack and strike roles the F18/F35 or Rafale would do both jobs very well. In fact back in the days of the last Ark Royal and the Eagle the F4's would have been more than capable of covering those roles however the RN still had its Bucs and probably for political reasons more than anything these remained to cover the strike role. (Remember the Buccaneer was used as a replacement for the TSR2 once the red tape (massive overspend) and inter service bickering had sunk that project).One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
IanMorewood said:
In fact back in the days of the last Ark Royal and the Eagle the F4's would have been more than capable of covering those roles however the RN still had its Bucs and probably for political reasons more than anything these remained to cover the strike role.
Nope..... Bucc was retained because the F-4 couldn't do what the Bucc could.IanMorewood said:
I will bow to your knowledge then but the F4 could have performed both fighter and strike roles had we asked it too.
While an F-4 did perform an AG role to an extent in airforce service, it couldn't do marine strike and anti-ship strike which is what the Bucc was designed for, and was the role which the RN carriers, back then were tasked with doing.aeropilot said:
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board?
One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
Super Hornet can do both with ease, as well as other stuff as mentioned, Growler and Buddy-Buddy tanking (as the Bucc could do many years ago as well).One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
In USN use the one basic F-18 airframe (in single seat, two seat & Growler versions) has replaced the F-14 Tomcat, A-6 Intruder, KA-6D, EA-6B Prowler and S-3 Viking.
Sea Dragon said:
VeeFour said:
Doesn't a really effective carrier need 2 kinds of aircraft on board?
One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
Not necessarily. One for fleet defence (ie. the old Sea Harrier role), and one for strike operations (ie. the GR7 / 9 role)?
Just like we used to operate with Buccaneers and Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal?
The F/A-18 is an effective multi role fighter. With both a single seat version and a dual seat version. The single seat has longer range due to more fuel space and I would imagine a better thrust to weight ratio.
The dual seat has slightly less range (nothing dramatic) and probably less thrust and weight however it compensates with the advantages of having an advanced two seat combat system.
Coupled with the Growler as well as Hawkeye for AWACS, as well as Merlin or Wildcat Helos and you have a balanced combat group.
As I said the only real problem would be deep penetration with stealthy aircraft. However the X-47 B is a better choice than the F35C for that role due to having a range in excess of 2,500nm and still being able to carry 2 internally loaded Storm shadow cruise missiles etc. With an E2D hawkeye controlling it the X-47B would be a fantastic addition to the airgroup after 2020. That would have given it 4-6 years training in CTOL carrier operations.
Remember the Growler, Super hornet single seat, Super hornet dual seat are different versions.. Not too disimilar to the FA.2, GR.7, GR.9
Mojocvh said:
Growler, Super hornet single seat, Super hornet dual seat are different versions..OF THE SAME AIRFRAME, not different types.
I said that, they are different versions of the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet being the airframe. If that was not clear then can people please note that is what I meant.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff