HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
It's nice irrespective of what you're operating over. The question was why being twin engined is necessary for effective air superiority. The F16 does OK.
An extra engine would provide more power allowing bigger aircraft with bigger fuel tanks for longer loiter time/range and a larger payload. When it comes to air superiority, I'd rather have an F14 than an F16 purely because I can shoot from further away, loiter for longer and can get in and out of trouble quicker.Comparing the f16 vs the f18, being similar in size than compared to the f14, the f18 has longer range and better combat performance.
And as said, having an extra engine will also give you a backup plan if you have an engine failure where 1 engine on the f16 goes, you're only option is glide or eject depending on where you're flying over.
Edit: I'm also of firm belief that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are a massive waste of money purely for the fact that a carrier should be judged by how well it's fighter wing is and how effectively it can support its fighter wing. The F35B are not capable aircraft compared to either the A or C versions the USAF and Navy are getting. Also, will the Queen Elizabeth class get any sort of AEW, which surely this was the primary reason why so many British lives were lost during the Falklands conflict, a lack of early warning that the fleet got from the Argentinian Sky Hawks?
Edited by Regiment on Sunday 6th July 10:43
Regiment said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It's nice irrespective of what you're operating over. The question was why being twin engined is necessary for effective air superiority. The F16 does OK.
An extra engine would provide more power allowing bigger aircraft with bigger fuel tanks for longer loiter time/range and a larger payload. When it comes to air superiority, I'd rather have an F14 than an F16 purely because I can shoot from further away, loiter for longer and can get in and out of trouble quicker.Comparing the f16 vs the f18, being similar in size than compared to the f14, the f18 has longer range and better combat performance.
And as said, having an extra engine will also give you a backup plan if you have an engine failure where 1 engine on the f16 goes, you're only option is glide or eject depending on where you're flying over.
As for the F16 like all single engined fighters it doesn't seem to have been designed for the outright air superiority role.Which accepted design parameters,over the years and to date,seems to take twin engines in the form of aircraft like the Lightning,Phantom,F14,F15,and F22 etc to get the job done.With carrier based aircraft needing a lot of strength redundancy which is why the Phantom,F14 and now F18 seem to be the logical carrier based options so far.Which probably also explains why the potential opposition all seem to be taking the two engine route.
IE basically the F35 is just an updated and upgraded performance type of aircraft in what was/is the Harrier league not the the air superiority one.Which is why we almost got wiped out in the Falklands against an air force made up up of relatively obsolete and/or anything but air superiority league hardware.Let alone a force made of of up to date two engined aircraft designed for the air superiority role.
Which then leaves the question would you prefer to go up against something like a two engined Mig 29K etc with an F14 or an F35.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 6th July 11:00
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 6th July 11:01
XJ Flyer said:
In addition to which in the case of the F35 it's not even the best in it's league of the single engined options like the F16.Like the Harrier it seems that VSTOL capability is always obtained at the expense of outright performance.
The VSTOL Dave-B has mostly the same outright performance as the other variants, it actually accelerates faster then the C. The only real impact of being VSTOL is the reduced size of the internal weapons bay which rules out a few weapons, most of which the UK doesn't carry. Range is reduced compared to the C but that is offset partially by not having to return with spare fuel in case of bolting. Catobar craft typically return to land with 20/25% fuel in the tanks in case they miss the wire and have to recircuit around. The B essentially can't miss so much like the Harrier will probably land with as little as 5% remaining.XJ Flyer said:
As for the F16 like all single engined fighters it doesn't seem to have been designed for the outright air superiority role.Which accepted design parameters,over the years and to date,seems to take twin engines in the form of aircraft like the Lightning,Phantom,F14,F15,and F22 etc to get the job done.With carrier based aircraft needing a lot ov strength redundancy which is why the Phantom,F14 and now F18 seem to be the logical carrier based options so far.Which probably also explains why the potential opposition all seem to be taking the two engine route.
It was designed as multi role / strike primarily. Most of the aircraft you list have to store fuel and weaponry externally, this brings massive drag penalties to the point that some traditional twin engined craft are unable to go supersonic with a few missiles and a couple of drop tanks attached. The single engined wide body design of the F-35 allows it to take a full combat weapons load into an area with no extra drag, no performance impact and maintaining the same level of RCS. I too would prefer a twin engined craft but not for those reasons. XJ Flyer said:
IE basically the F35 is just an updated and upgraded performance type of aircraft in what was/is the Harrier league not the the air superiority one.Which is why we almost got wiped out in the Falklands against an air force made up up of relatively obsolete and/or anything but air superiority league hardware.Let alone a force made of of up to date two engined aircraft designed for the air superiority role.
Again the F-35 was never supposed to be an air superiority fighter. In a fight against dedicated AS Fighters it will be relying entirely on its reduced radar signature and more powerful radar and sensor suite to allow it to fire the first missile before being detected. Will that work? We won't know until the situation happens but that is what it is designed for. doogz said:
The Argentines used A-4 Skyhawks. Single engined.
There have been a few single engined air-superiority craft over the years, from MiG 15, F-86, F-8, Mirage, and now the F35.
Assuming that the F35 is supposedly an 'air superiority' league aircraft then why do we need the Typhoon or F22.In addition to which why did 'the opposition' also decide to go along the two engine route for the air superiority role instead of staying with the single engine one.There have been a few single engined air-superiority craft over the years, from MiG 15, F-86, F-8, Mirage, and now the F35.
IE the issue isn't one of historic examples of the ( compromised ) single engine idea in service.It's one of which has the outright advantage in a two engine v single engine fight especially in the case of an aircraft with the F35's obviously even more compromised outright performance envelope v something like an F16.
XJ Flyer said:
Which then leaves the question would you prefer to go up against something like a two engined Mig 29K etc with an F14 or an F35.
That isn't the question because there is no option of rescuing F14s from museums as an alternative, we can't afford catapult carriers. I frankly doubt an F14 would bear comparison with a Mig29 in any event. The question is whether the QE is worth the money, and it is significantly cheaper than a catapult equipped carrier. Bear in mind there are advantages in in VSTOL carrier aircraft in terms of sortie rate and bad weather operations irrespective of how 'inferior' they may be in a Top Trumps sense. Godalmighty83 said:
Again the F-35 was never supposed to be an air superiority fighter. In a fight against dedicated AS Fighters it will be relying entirely on its reduced radar signature and more powerful radar and sensor suite to allow it to fire the first missile before being detected. Will that work? We won't know until the situation happens but that is what it is designed for.
At the end of the day that's the point which we've paid a fortune for and which we're betting the farm on.Accepted practice learn't from experience suggests that air superiority requires two engined aircraft.While it's obvious that anything built with VSTOL design critera in the mix counts out such an engine configuration and therefore air superiority capability.IE an expensive aircraft that isn't up to the job it's designed to do.XJ Flyer said:
Accepted practice learn't from experience suggests that air superiority requires two engined aircraft.
Simply not true. Most military aircraft are twin engined because of a calculation that losing fewer aircraft due to engine failures justifies the cost, nothing to do with air superiority capability. The Fouga Magister and the Alpha jet were both twin engined does that mean training requires two engine aircraft?Why does VSTOL design rule out two engines anyway?
doogz said:
XJ Flyer said:
Assuming that the F35 is supposedly an 'air superiority' league aircraft then why do we need the Typhoon or F22.In addition to which why did 'the opposition' also decide to go along the two engine route for the air superiority role instead of staying with the single engine one.
IE the issue isn't one of historic examples of the ( compromised ) single engine idea in service.It's one of which has the outright advantage in a two engine v single engine fight especially in the case of an aircraft with the F35's obviously even more compromised outright performance envelope v something like an F16.
Why do we need the Typhoon?IE the issue isn't one of historic examples of the ( compromised ) single engine idea in service.It's one of which has the outright advantage in a two engine v single engine fight especially in the case of an aircraft with the F35's obviously even more compromised outright performance envelope v something like an F16.
Well, we already have them. They're also faster, can carry more, larger combat radius, but aren't fit for carrier use.
The F14/F35 thing, against a 29K, the F14's first flew in what, 1970, and have been out of service for nearly a decade. I'd like to hope the F35 is far superior in every respect.
As for F14 v F35 the figures suggest that the former can at least probably still get into and out of bother faster than the latter.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Spec...
The use of twin engines is born from the desire for a redundant engine (what you should be criticising the F-35 for lacking) and the engineering challenges of making a single large engine, traditional manufacturing process and materials couldn't build the large rotating parts to be both light or strong enough. So if you wanted that power you had to have a pair. There is nothing about having two engines that grants any special air to air capability. In terms of aerodynamics and the effect of the heat cone from the engine a single centre line engine is preferred.
XJ Flyer said:
As for F14 v F35 the figures suggest that the former can at least probably still get into and out of bother faster than the latter.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Spec...
Providing the F-14 pilot isn't falling through the air wondering why his jet was just blown in two when his radar screen didn't pick anything up.www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Spec...
Edited by Godalmighty83 on Sunday 6th July 11:42
Dr Jekyll said:
XJ Flyer said:
Accepted practice learn't from experience suggests that air superiority requires two engined aircraft.
Simply not true. Most military aircraft are twin engined because of a calculation that losing fewer aircraft due to engine failures justifies the cost, nothing to do with air superiority capability. The Fouga Magister and the Alpha jet were both twin engined does that mean training requires two engine aircraft?Why does VSTOL design rule out two engines anyway?
As for why does VSTOL capability rule out twin engine air superiority capability the fact that no one has ever tried to produce such an aircraft seems to answer the question.
doogz said:
XJ Flyer said:
Exactly.We need the Typhoon because it's designed for the air superiority role.
As for F14 v F35 the figures suggest that the former can at least probably still get into and out of bother faster than the latter.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Spec...
An AIM-120 does Mach 4.As for F14 v F35 the figures suggest that the former can at least probably still get into and out of bother faster than the latter.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Spec...
Is that your only point? That an F-14 is faster?
These days it's less about speed, more about detectability/observability.
doogz said:
An F35s single engine produces more power than the F18s 2 added together. Meaning less space taken up by engine, more power, less weight taken up by engine, meaning more room for fuel. The F35 has a larger combat radius on internal fuel than an F18.
That's only comparing the A and C against a Superhornet. The Superhornet and the B are a lot more equal and one betters the other depending on what your performance preferences are and there are also slight differences between the E and F Superhornets anyway. Personally I feel we should have gone down the cat and trap and gone with the Advanced Superhornet that Boeing have offered as an F35 Competitor until drones are usable. All of this has been discussed at great length in the F35 thread. None of it really matters as we are stuck with the ramp and the F35B. 
doogz said:
There'll always be a SAMPSON radar no more than a few miles away as well.
Which is fine if your opponents are approaching at high altitude - unfortunately most air forces have long ago cottoned on to the fact that attacking at low level means a ship mounted radar can't see you until you pop over its horizon, which in the case of a SAMPSON mounted on a Type 45 destroyer is only around 25 miles away for a target flying at 100 feet.By comparison an E-2D Hawkeye flying at altitude can detect low flying targets up to 300 miles away
XJ Flyer said:
As for why does VSTOL capability rule out twin engine air superiority capability the fact that no one has ever tried to produce such an aircraft seems to answer the question.
No, the P1154 was abandoned because the Navy didn't want it, not because a twin engine VSTOL fighter was technically impossible.Incidentally Dassault flew an experimental VSTOL fighter with 9 engines, and YAK with 3.
Dr Jekyll said:
No, the P1154 was abandoned because the Navy didn't want it, not because a twin engine VSTOL fighter was technically impossible.
At the time the Navy was in love with big mach 2 fighters like the Phantom, so weren't interested in what they saw as a compromised design in the 1154. Unfortunately they didn't foresee the loss of their big carriers and thus their capability to operate the Phantom - if they'd gone ahead with the 1154 they'd probably have retained a greater fixed wing capability aboard the Invincible class than they actually did with the Sea Harrier.Z06George said:
Personally I feel we should have gone down the cat and trap and gone with the Advanced Superhornet that Boeing have offered as an F35 Competitor until drones are usable. All of this has been discussed at great length in the F35 thread. None of it really matters as we are stuck with the ramp and the F35B.
The advanced super hornet didn't exist at the time the choice was originally made and to be fair most of the new elements while improvements still don't bring the SH up to level to the F-35 in terms of things like RCS or radar/sensor performance. The platform is still dependant on external pods and bolt ons all of which come with sizeable drag and radar detectability penalties. I would certainly prefer to the CVF to have cats and be able to utilise the much wider array of support craft and future drones but purchasing legacy craft would only defer the need to purchase more advanced craft a decade or so.
MartG said:
Just to open another can of worms, does anyone else think we should have gone for nuclear power for these two carriers ?
The range and prestige would have been nice but there would have been no way in hell to get the cost of developing, producing and disposing of those reactors past the bean counters. The only hope we have of keeping both carriers past the SDR15 is the fact that they are so cheap to run for their size. Throw the costs of those reactors in and it would be almost 100% certain that the UK would be in Frances position of having only one carrier available half of the year at a time.It's quite impressive that each of these now almost 70,000t carriers gets better economy then the 20,000t carriers they are replacing.
My 2p worth on the subject of the F35b, if it can be made to work how it's supposed to work then it will be a superb aircraft and the best all rounder choice for a well funded navy that doesn't operate catobar carriers. However it's still a long way off operational and still far from integrated with the weapons it's supposed to be able to deliver. On top of that it's cost per unit is way higher than other navalised fighters which is probably why we will never operate one never mind both carriers with a full airgroup.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff