HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Sorry I don't think I worded my point properly, I meant if we'd gone down cat and trap then during the build process we could have gone from the F18E/F to the Advanced Superhornet. Whilst I don't disagree with your sensor point, is there not a limit to where sensor level etc become irrelevant? I thought pilots still needed visual conformation before engaging? Lastly excuse my ignorance but what is RCS?
Z06George said:
Sorry I don't think I worded my point properly, I meant if we'd gone down cat and trap then during the build process we could have gone from the F18E/F to the Advanced Superhornet. Whilst I don't disagree with your sensor point, is there not a limit to where sensor level etc become irrelevant? I thought pilots still needed visual conformation before engaging? Lastly excuse my ignorance but what is RCS?
Radar Cross Section. Usually used to describe the frontal section of aircraft presuming they are always facing each other head on, the signature from other angles should also be considered but those numbers are nigh on impossible to get.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/steal...
As RCS reduces the requirement for more powerful radars and sensors to see those craft increases, many legacy craft are very limited in to what they can carry due to the size of their noses and their electrical power capability.
And yes, Rules of Engagement make the discussing of most military equipment simply a game of top trumps. In most circumstance we have to presume total unrestricted warfare as RoE make everything a pain in the backside.
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
More expensive carrier with cheaper more effective fighters vs a cheaper carrier with more expensive less capable fighters. I know it has probably never been done before but surely the Royal Navy having a CATOBAR carrier would increase the likely hood of joint operations within NATO. US Navy and NATO fighters flying from British carriers or Royal Navy pilots flying from American carriers, either during training exercises or during military operations for whatever reason. If I was in charge, I'd be talking to countries like America and France and saying "when we go to war, we tend to do it together, so let's ensure our pilots and carriers can operate together hand in hand. You could do that now with the Royal Navy working with the US Marines, but not much else.MartG said:
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
Exactly this, not sure of the Type 45s radar abilities but how many seconds would a Type 45 destroyer's weapons officer have to identify, lock and launch it's missiles against a brand new sea skimming anti-ship missile travelling at Mach 3+ at below 25 feet? These missiles would be launched from fighters at a range of 100 miles+, a Hawkeye would give you more warning and allowing the CAP to intercept the launch aircraft and fire on the launch aircraft before the anti-ship missile is even fired.By comparison an E-2D Hawkeye flying at altitude can detect low flying targets up to 300 miles away
Edited by Regiment on Sunday 6th July 14:08
doogz said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the question why is it that the potential 'opposition' don't seem to share your view.
The 29K is a 20-ish year old design, based on a nearly 40 year old design.You're comparing it to a brand spanking aircraft, and saying that the LM are wrong because they're only using one engine, that's more powerful than the 2 on said 40 year old design?
In the case of the F35 there obviously seems to be an 'issue' regarding same in that they've quoted one ( hopeless by comparison less than .9:1 ) figure with a full fuel load and another,which not surprisingly is better,with with less than a full fuel load.IE not surprisingly the real world figures for the older two engine designs are better.Which then leaves the obvious outright speed deficit.I think I'd prefer to spend the money wasted on the F35 on a carrier version of the Eurofighter/Typhoon.
www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-...
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 6th July 14:08
Regiment said:
I know it has probably never been done before but surely the Royal Navy having a CATOBAR carrier would increase the likely hood of joint operations within NATO.
It's certainly been done in exercises, although getting an US Navy Phantom off Ark Royal was a bit tricky. On the other hand with VSTOL it's a lot easier for RAF pilots to operate from carriers when required and the F35Bs are supposed to be shared between RAF and FAA.Dr Jekyll said:
Regiment said:
I know it has probably never been done before but surely the Royal Navy having a CATOBAR carrier would increase the likely hood of joint operations within NATO.
It's certainly been done in exercises, although getting an US Navy Phantom off Ark Royal was a bit tricky. On the other hand with VSTOL it's a lot easier for RAF pilots to operate from carriers when required and the F35Bs are supposed to be shared between RAF and FAA.The core requirement for the UK is being able to surge aircraft onto the carriers with minimum deck landing practice required. We are not the US Navy with dedicated carrier air wings. We will a number of joint squadrons (nominally name-plated as FAA or RAF but each with mix of crews) that will operate from land or sea as required.
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?
Regiment said:
These are the rules of coolness.
Nuclear > Turbine > Petrol > Electric > Steam > Sails > Paddles > No Engine > Diesel.
Meaning, Nuclear should have been the only option I'm afraid.
Nuclear > Turbine > Petrol > Electric > Steam > Sails > Paddles > No Engine > Slaves > Diesel.Nuclear > Turbine > Petrol > Electric > Steam > Sails > Paddles > No Engine > Diesel.
Meaning, Nuclear should have been the only option I'm afraid.
Regiment said:
rhinochopig said:
A big petrol engine would be too thirsty - it'd sound nice though.
These are the rules of coolness.Nuclear > Turbine > Petrol > Electric > Steam > Sails > Paddles > No Engine > Diesel.
Meaning, Nuclear should have been the only option I'm afraid.
Joking apart I don't think nuclear is a sensible option for a UK carrier. The NSRP in the US carriers causes them a lot of operational problems as there are many countries who simply won't admit nuclear powered vessels into their waters.
Also it would cost a fortune to adapt the plant and infrastructure to support one. And the big advantage of not needing to RAS is negated by the all the rest of the fleet needing to; carriers don't travel anywhere alone.
It'd help the R-R share price though
brycheiniog1 said:
RNAS.....!The RNAS disappeared in April 1918
But, you've missed the point I was making.
yes, F-35B fleet will have a cadre of RN pilots and will stand up a designated NAS but all a/c are 'owned' for want of a better word by the RAF. It's essentially the same as previously with the JFH set-up, rather than as was the case with the old FAA Sea Harriers prior to JFH.
lamboman100 said:
The HMS QE looks dated already and needs to be at least 50% bigger, add catapults, and run on different fuel. They should scrap it and start again.
You would also need to build a new dock to build it in as we have no where that can support a ship that size. The GRF Cost more then both of our carriers combined so I don't think you would be able to swing that past the budget committee. I read a good conspiracy theory article by some RN brass that the decision to go VTOL was to protect the RAF....
The committee that made the decision was largely RAF and the theory is that by limiting the RN to VTOL only they were removing the possibility of the RN outgunning the RAF. After all a worldwide fixed wing capability trumps a land base only capability so there was a risk that the RAF would be limited to a home defence and air transport role. Sounds plausible given the internecine cat-fighting that seems to go on.
The committee that made the decision was largely RAF and the theory is that by limiting the RN to VTOL only they were removing the possibility of the RN outgunning the RAF. After all a worldwide fixed wing capability trumps a land base only capability so there was a risk that the RAF would be limited to a home defence and air transport role. Sounds plausible given the internecine cat-fighting that seems to go on.
Z06George said:
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.
At least until the Congressional oversight committee bins it on cost grounds. We will look a bit daft if that happens. On the plus side the USMC might well start the 2nd US civil war and invade Washington. MartG said:
By comparison an E-2D Hawkeye flying at altitude can detect low flying targets up to 300 miles away
Surely if your starting from scratch in terms of AEW capability it would be more logical to develop a ISR UAV that could be either carrier lunched or lunched from the rear pad of a type 45. Some form of networked blimp seems the most logical to me in providing beyond horizon capability. Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff