These new aircraft carriers - techie question
Discussion
How come these new aircraft carriers that we're making will be carrying US made Joint Strike Fighters rather than the Euro Fighter/Typhoon? According to the BBC website (not the most accurate of sources admittedly) these ships will carry approx 40 JSF's each.
Aren't the JSF's around €150 million each compared to €50 million for the Eurofighter? So surely it would make sense to have the cheaper plane?
Aren't the JSF's around €150 million each compared to €50 million for the Eurofighter? So surely it would make sense to have the cheaper plane?
The Typhoon was not designed for carrier landings and takeoffs. A special navalised version would need to be designed and built. It's not impossible - the French have built a navalised version of their Raphale, for example.
But I doubt if the cost would end up being less costly than the JSF.
But I doubt if the cost would end up being less costly than the JSF.
Because the Typhoon was never designed for Carrier operations. It would require an arrestor hook for landings, which in turn would require the rear end of the aircraft to be strengthened to cope with the sudden deceleration. The undercarriage would be need to be strengthened significantly to cope with the heavy landings while also assisting catapult launches. To cope with this extra weight, the aircraft would require a larger wing, which in turn would require a stronger undercarriage and larger engines for the same level of performance. More weight thus an ever bigger wing. Nor is the Eurofighter designed to cope with a maritime environment (all that salt water). So to navalise the Typhoon would significantly increase the cost of it although probably less than the cost of JSF.
Other conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft that could been used instead of the JSF include the French Rafale and the US F-18. The disadvantages of these include: being a previous generation of aircraft; lacking any stealth at allalthough the JSF isn't on a par with the F22 or B2, it at least has some capability in that respect and little, if any, UK industrial involvement (a politically important criteria in defence procurement).
However, there isn't simply one version of the JSF; there are actually three: F-35A, which is a land based variant for the USAF; F-35B, the STOVL version we and the USMC are looking at; and the F-35C a CATOBAR variant for the US Navy.
We could buy the F-35C instead together with catapults and arrestor calbes for CVF (they are designed with such a refit in mind). On one hand, it has a greater range, larger bomb bay (no need to squeeze in a fan to provide vertical lift), apparently meeting its performance targets and will likely be cheaper. On the other hand, most of the UK involvement in the JSF programme revolves around our STOVL expertise, particularly Rolls Royce who are supposed to be building one of the possible engine variants for the F-35B (assuming the Pentagon don't cut it to save money). More importantly, the JSF is not only intended to replace the former Sea Harriers on the carriers but also the RAF Harrier force on land. Their STOVL capability proved handy in Afghanistan when Khandahar wasn't up to scratch for the Tornado GR4. Lastly, STOVL with modern computer assistance (even the Rolling VL that the JSF may have to make to be able to land) is easier to pick up than conventional CATOBAR operations. This could enable the RAF to reinforce FAA sqns on the carriers with relatively little practice, thus reducing the overall fleet size needed to provide the carriers with a full complement in war.
Other conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft that could been used instead of the JSF include the French Rafale and the US F-18. The disadvantages of these include: being a previous generation of aircraft; lacking any stealth at allalthough the JSF isn't on a par with the F22 or B2, it at least has some capability in that respect and little, if any, UK industrial involvement (a politically important criteria in defence procurement).
However, there isn't simply one version of the JSF; there are actually three: F-35A, which is a land based variant for the USAF; F-35B, the STOVL version we and the USMC are looking at; and the F-35C a CATOBAR variant for the US Navy.
We could buy the F-35C instead together with catapults and arrestor calbes for CVF (they are designed with such a refit in mind). On one hand, it has a greater range, larger bomb bay (no need to squeeze in a fan to provide vertical lift), apparently meeting its performance targets and will likely be cheaper. On the other hand, most of the UK involvement in the JSF programme revolves around our STOVL expertise, particularly Rolls Royce who are supposed to be building one of the possible engine variants for the F-35B (assuming the Pentagon don't cut it to save money). More importantly, the JSF is not only intended to replace the former Sea Harriers on the carriers but also the RAF Harrier force on land. Their STOVL capability proved handy in Afghanistan when Khandahar wasn't up to scratch for the Tornado GR4. Lastly, STOVL with modern computer assistance (even the Rolling VL that the JSF may have to make to be able to land) is easier to pick up than conventional CATOBAR operations. This could enable the RAF to reinforce FAA sqns on the carriers with relatively little practice, thus reducing the overall fleet size needed to provide the carriers with a full complement in war.
In order to get something as heavy as Typhoon off the deck with a decent payload, currently you need steam catapults. They won't be fitted to the new carriers.
Unfortunately, the only means to make enough steam in order to use them is via a nuclear reactor and HMG in their usual wisdom decided they wanted a much greener solution to driving these things around the planet (a few million litres of finest oil) so nuclear reactors are not fitted either. Needless to say, our Gallic friends don't have this problem as their carrier is nuclear.
A mate was involved early in the design process of the new CV and I'm led to believe that a small reactor was considered to power the catupults at one stage should they decide to fit them. I suppose an alternative could be an electomagnetic one. Having said that, the Russians seem to do quite well without catapults and the Sukhoi is significantly heavier than the Typhoon!
About 50 secs in....
Unfortunately, the only means to make enough steam in order to use them is via a nuclear reactor and HMG in their usual wisdom decided they wanted a much greener solution to driving these things around the planet (a few million litres of finest oil) so nuclear reactors are not fitted either. Needless to say, our Gallic friends don't have this problem as their carrier is nuclear.
A mate was involved early in the design process of the new CV and I'm led to believe that a small reactor was considered to power the catupults at one stage should they decide to fit them. I suppose an alternative could be an electomagnetic one. Having said that, the Russians seem to do quite well without catapults and the Sukhoi is significantly heavier than the Typhoon!
About 50 secs in....
These new carriers do make me laugh, in a cynical kind of fashion.
Consider:
We barely have the money or manpower to run the carriers we do have.
We can just about manage to get a handful of Harriers to occasionally operate from the current carriers.
We are fast running out of carrier-escort suitable vessels. The 45s have already been cut in numbers. Only some submarines work. We've already flogged off a number of relatively youthful ships.
We are pretty much at full stretch with our current resources, and our wonderful govt keep handing us more jobs.
Defence cuts are undoubtedly on the way, as our wonderful leaders will cutback on everything before they'll consider tackling the main expenditure that is crippling the country - welfare.
Plus:
We reckon that we're going to get two mahoosive carriers (by RN standards) with an air wing of 40 JSF plus helicopters.
Equals:
Cynical ROFL
Consider:
We barely have the money or manpower to run the carriers we do have.
We can just about manage to get a handful of Harriers to occasionally operate from the current carriers.
We are fast running out of carrier-escort suitable vessels. The 45s have already been cut in numbers. Only some submarines work. We've already flogged off a number of relatively youthful ships.
We are pretty much at full stretch with our current resources, and our wonderful govt keep handing us more jobs.
Defence cuts are undoubtedly on the way, as our wonderful leaders will cutback on everything before they'll consider tackling the main expenditure that is crippling the country - welfare.
Plus:
We reckon that we're going to get two mahoosive carriers (by RN standards) with an air wing of 40 JSF plus helicopters.
Equals:
Cynical ROFL
andy400 said:
These new carriers do make me laugh, in a cynical kind of fashion.
Consider:
We barely have the money or manpower to run the carriers we do have.
We can just about manage to get a handful of Harriers to occasionally operate from the current carriers.
We are fast running out of carrier-escort suitable vessels. The 45s have already been cut in numbers. Only some submarines work. We've already flogged off a number of relatively youthful ships.
We are pretty much at full stretch with our current resources, and our wonderful govt keep handing us more jobs.
Defence cuts are undoubtedly on the way, as our wonderful leaders will cutback on everything before they'll consider tackling the main expenditure that is crippling the country - welfare.
Plus:
We reckon that we're going to get two mahoosive carriers (by RN standards) with an air wing of 40 JSF plus helicopters.
Equals:
Cynical ROFL
Especially as it's been reported in the Telegraph that they may get rid of our current carriers and all Harriers. The way things are going, all we'll have is the Trident boats or whatever will replace them.Consider:
We barely have the money or manpower to run the carriers we do have.
We can just about manage to get a handful of Harriers to occasionally operate from the current carriers.
We are fast running out of carrier-escort suitable vessels. The 45s have already been cut in numbers. Only some submarines work. We've already flogged off a number of relatively youthful ships.
We are pretty much at full stretch with our current resources, and our wonderful govt keep handing us more jobs.
Defence cuts are undoubtedly on the way, as our wonderful leaders will cutback on everything before they'll consider tackling the main expenditure that is crippling the country - welfare.
Plus:
We reckon that we're going to get two mahoosive carriers (by RN standards) with an air wing of 40 JSF plus helicopters.
Equals:
Cynical ROFL
ninja-lewis said:
Because the Typhoon was never designed for Carrier operations. It would require an arrestor hook for landings, which in turn would require the rear end of the aircraft to be strengthened to cope with the sudden deceleration. The undercarriage would be need to be strengthened significantly to cope with the heavy landings while also assisting catapult launches. To cope with this extra weight, the aircraft would require a larger wing, which in turn would require a stronger undercarriage and larger engines for the same level of performance. More weight thus an ever bigger wing. Nor is the Eurofighter designed to cope with a maritime environment (all that salt water). So to navalise the Typhoon would significantly increase the cost of it although probably less than the cost of JSF.
Other conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft that could been used instead of the JSF include the French Rafale and the US F-18. The disadvantages of these include: being a previous generation of aircraft; lacking any stealth at allalthough the JSF isn't on a par with the F22 or B2, it at least has some capability in that respect and little, if any, UK industrial involvement (a politically important criteria in defence procurement).
However, there isn't simply one version of the JSF; there are actually three: F-35A, which is a land based variant for the USAF; F-35B, the STOVL version we and the USMC are looking at; and the F-35C a CATOBAR variant for the US Navy.
We could buy the F-35C instead together with catapults and arrestor calbes for CVF (they are designed with such a refit in mind). On one hand, it has a greater range, larger bomb bay (no need to squeeze in a fan to provide vertical lift), apparently meeting its performance targets and will likely be cheaper. On the other hand, most of the UK involvement in the JSF programme revolves around our STOVL expertise, particularly Rolls Royce who are supposed to be building one of the possible engine variants for the F-35B (assuming the Pentagon don't cut it to save money). More importantly, the JSF is not only intended to replace the former Sea Harriers on the carriers but also the RAF Harrier force on land. Their STOVL capability proved handy in Afghanistan when Khandahar wasn't up to scratch for the Tornado GR4. Lastly, STOVL with modern computer assistance (even the Rolling VL that the JSF may have to make to be able to land) is easier to pick up than conventional CATOBAR operations. This could enable the RAF to reinforce FAA sqns on the carriers with relatively little practice, thus reducing the overall fleet size needed to provide the carriers with a full complement in war.
Both carriers were designed with catapults in mind if the F-35B failed. Two types were considered. Steam and Electro magnetic(Maglev style). As for generating steam that can be done relatively easily even without Boilers or Reactor's. I would not expect either ship at this moment to require them but they will be available if required.Other conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft that could been used instead of the JSF include the French Rafale and the US F-18. The disadvantages of these include: being a previous generation of aircraft; lacking any stealth at allalthough the JSF isn't on a par with the F22 or B2, it at least has some capability in that respect and little, if any, UK industrial involvement (a politically important criteria in defence procurement).
However, there isn't simply one version of the JSF; there are actually three: F-35A, which is a land based variant for the USAF; F-35B, the STOVL version we and the USMC are looking at; and the F-35C a CATOBAR variant for the US Navy.
We could buy the F-35C instead together with catapults and arrestor calbes for CVF (they are designed with such a refit in mind). On one hand, it has a greater range, larger bomb bay (no need to squeeze in a fan to provide vertical lift), apparently meeting its performance targets and will likely be cheaper. On the other hand, most of the UK involvement in the JSF programme revolves around our STOVL expertise, particularly Rolls Royce who are supposed to be building one of the possible engine variants for the F-35B (assuming the Pentagon don't cut it to save money). More importantly, the JSF is not only intended to replace the former Sea Harriers on the carriers but also the RAF Harrier force on land. Their STOVL capability proved handy in Afghanistan when Khandahar wasn't up to scratch for the Tornado GR4. Lastly, STOVL with modern computer assistance (even the Rolling VL that the JSF may have to make to be able to land) is easier to pick up than conventional CATOBAR operations. This could enable the RAF to reinforce FAA sqns on the carriers with relatively little practice, thus reducing the overall fleet size needed to provide the carriers with a full complement in war.
not a defence expert, but I can't for the life of me understand why in the current economic situation, we are not just getting on with building these carriers (and fit them with nuclear power)
we are looking at mass un-employment, the steel industry (what little we have left) is about to die, engineering is on it's knees, shipyards are about to be come extinct, etc etc.
we are going to have to be spending billions doing effectively nothing, building these would keep a lot of industry going, clearly it would have to be a very much British only project (as in labour/design/materials/etc) but look what it would do for several major industries.
Now, you can argue the need all you want, but at the moment we seem to be running show using rented in/borrowed/begged kit that's costing us as a country way more in both the short and long term.
Personally, I would rather see the Government spending money on projects like this than paying to prop up the dole queue's and other pointless initiatives
worth remembering the Bank of England are currently spending/buying at the rate of £6Bn a week at the moment propping up the economy (Quantitative easing anyone?)
we are looking at mass un-employment, the steel industry (what little we have left) is about to die, engineering is on it's knees, shipyards are about to be come extinct, etc etc.
we are going to have to be spending billions doing effectively nothing, building these would keep a lot of industry going, clearly it would have to be a very much British only project (as in labour/design/materials/etc) but look what it would do for several major industries.
Now, you can argue the need all you want, but at the moment we seem to be running show using rented in/borrowed/begged kit that's costing us as a country way more in both the short and long term.
Personally, I would rather see the Government spending money on projects like this than paying to prop up the dole queue's and other pointless initiatives
worth remembering the Bank of England are currently spending/buying at the rate of £6Bn a week at the moment propping up the economy (Quantitative easing anyone?)
Edited by Scuffers on Friday 10th July 08:44
Because in the current climate the government has to rely on borrowing to fund projects such as this.
At some point the loans will have to be repaid.
In the end, it is the taxpayer's/voter's choice as to where they want their tax monies spent.
For many, many years, increasing defence expenditure has been a vote loser, not a vote winner.
That may be changing as the general public become more aware of the dire situation our armed services find themselves in when it comes to their reliance on inadequate or obsolete equipmemt - or manpower shortages.
At some point the loans will have to be repaid.
In the end, it is the taxpayer's/voter's choice as to where they want their tax monies spent.
For many, many years, increasing defence expenditure has been a vote loser, not a vote winner.
That may be changing as the general public become more aware of the dire situation our armed services find themselves in when it comes to their reliance on inadequate or obsolete equipmemt - or manpower shortages.
Eric Mc said:
Because in the current climate the government has to rely on borrowing to fund projects such as this.
At some point the loans will have to be repaid.
In the end, it is the taxpayer's/voter's choice as to where they want their tax monies spent.
For many, many years, increasing defence expenditure has been a vote loser, not a vote winner.
That may be changing as the general public become more aware of the dire situation our armed services find themselves in when it comes to their reliance on inadequate or obsolete equipmemt - or manpower shortages.
Eric,At some point the loans will have to be repaid.
In the end, it is the taxpayer's/voter's choice as to where they want their tax monies spent.
For many, many years, increasing defence expenditure has been a vote loser, not a vote winner.
That may be changing as the general public become more aware of the dire situation our armed services find themselves in when it comes to their reliance on inadequate or obsolete equipmemt - or manpower shortages.
whilst I understand your comments (and respect your views), we are spending the money anyway, the £6Bn a week is being spent on effectively buying stuff so that there is more cash in the economy, we are all going to be paying fr this for years, my point is I would rather see it used for real projects that we need than just propping up the dole queues and banking c**ts
My view was a reflection on the political facts. In a democracy, politicians will look to where they think the voters' wishes lie. They have to in order to stay in their jobs.
As I said, in the past, defence was a low priority of most voters - and therefore most politicians. Now that our soldiers and airmen are dying because of inadequate defence funding, some politicians have begun to realise that defence SHOULD have a higher priority.
In fact, it is partly because of the problems encountered by troops on the ground that the carriers are vulnerable to being axed. The army, for instance, think that the money allocated to the carriers could be spent more effectively elsewhere e.g. on the Army.
As I said, in the past, defence was a low priority of most voters - and therefore most politicians. Now that our soldiers and airmen are dying because of inadequate defence funding, some politicians have begun to realise that defence SHOULD have a higher priority.
In fact, it is partly because of the problems encountered by troops on the ground that the carriers are vulnerable to being axed. The army, for instance, think that the money allocated to the carriers could be spent more effectively elsewhere e.g. on the Army.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 10th July 09:08
Its worth pointing out, I think, that the defence budget is just 6% of the total govt spend and has dropped from about 10% in 2000. Put another way, the Cold war days of the late 1980s defence spending was just over 4% of GDP & now its about 2.5%. In contrast, the combined Health & Social Security budget is currently at about 40% of Govt spending and the Health Service, alone, is the third largest employer IN THE WORLD (behind tjhe Chinese Army & the Indian Railway).
Despite this, the Govt has announced yet another Green Paper Defence spending review but has not announced a spending review across all departments. I think that Defence has taken a big enough "hit" but the perception appears to be that its a high spending dept ripe for cut backs. I'd argue that it has been cut enough unless the Govt wants to start cutting commitments. And remember the 2 Carriers were a major plank of the Strategic Defence Review (11 years ago!) to enable the UK PLC to have a global power projection capabilty, in order to protects the interests of the UK at long range from the home base. That policy has not changed.
Despite this, the Govt has announced yet another Green Paper Defence spending review but has not announced a spending review across all departments. I think that Defence has taken a big enough "hit" but the perception appears to be that its a high spending dept ripe for cut backs. I'd argue that it has been cut enough unless the Govt wants to start cutting commitments. And remember the 2 Carriers were a major plank of the Strategic Defence Review (11 years ago!) to enable the UK PLC to have a global power projection capabilty, in order to protects the interests of the UK at long range from the home base. That policy has not changed.
As long as the UK has overseas responsibilities - which it still has as leader of the Commonwealth, and it still has numerous overseas protectorates, then it needs carriers. If it decides that carriers are no longer affordable, then the signal being sent out to Commonwealth countries and the remaining overseas territories is that Britain has no commitment to assist them in times of trouble.
The curious irony of this is that it appears, from the outside at least, to be part of the fall-out from the conflict in the Falklands - which by all accounts was a very close run thing.
So replacing two elderly Through-Deck Cruiser carrying relatively cheap Sea Harriers with two large carriers carrying not many more hideously expensive JSFs is frankly baffling.
If anything, I think we'd have been better off carrying on with the cheaper option of what we have now by refining the Sea Harrier and Through Deck Cruiser principal; at least then we'd have had some change left over for the other important bits like Frigates and Missile Cruisers and support ships.
Ultimately, what will the new Carriers bring?
Say we have a rerun of 1982 - what then? We might be able to project 40 JSFs into the South Atlantic, but what's going to carry the Marines, the Ghurkas, the Guards, and the Paras?
The problem seems to be that nobody in either Government or the MOD can really decide what it is 'Defence' really means; The RAF have their now traditional role of domestic defence. The Army has morphed from it's pre-war colonial Police force organisation to post-war Continental Cold War army and now sits awkwardly between the two trying to do the job it was equipped to do 100 years ago with stuff largely designed to work in West Germany.
The Navy doesn't have an awful lot to do in many respects - the Navy evolved into a world power projection force through the Imperial age. But since the end of the Empire, what's it for? Stalking Russian subs and delivering the Army to where it's needed. Fundamentally the Russian thing has gone away, for now, and in times of global peace the Army uses the RAF to ferry things around.
So, we've got two new Carriers on the way, without money to pay for supporting vessels, to be given to a Navy without a clear role in life, and equipped with aeroplanes which may not even ever make it into production.
Meanwhile, the RAF is busy falling out of the sky as it's 40yr Nimrods and Harriers are disintegrating, and the Army is trying to fight a guerilla war with 50 rounds per man and relying heavily on the US for air support because we've never got round to replacing the Jaguar or the Buccaneer.
Marvellous.
So replacing two elderly Through-Deck Cruiser carrying relatively cheap Sea Harriers with two large carriers carrying not many more hideously expensive JSFs is frankly baffling.
If anything, I think we'd have been better off carrying on with the cheaper option of what we have now by refining the Sea Harrier and Through Deck Cruiser principal; at least then we'd have had some change left over for the other important bits like Frigates and Missile Cruisers and support ships.
Ultimately, what will the new Carriers bring?
Say we have a rerun of 1982 - what then? We might be able to project 40 JSFs into the South Atlantic, but what's going to carry the Marines, the Ghurkas, the Guards, and the Paras?
The problem seems to be that nobody in either Government or the MOD can really decide what it is 'Defence' really means; The RAF have their now traditional role of domestic defence. The Army has morphed from it's pre-war colonial Police force organisation to post-war Continental Cold War army and now sits awkwardly between the two trying to do the job it was equipped to do 100 years ago with stuff largely designed to work in West Germany.
The Navy doesn't have an awful lot to do in many respects - the Navy evolved into a world power projection force through the Imperial age. But since the end of the Empire, what's it for? Stalking Russian subs and delivering the Army to where it's needed. Fundamentally the Russian thing has gone away, for now, and in times of global peace the Army uses the RAF to ferry things around.
So, we've got two new Carriers on the way, without money to pay for supporting vessels, to be given to a Navy without a clear role in life, and equipped with aeroplanes which may not even ever make it into production.
Meanwhile, the RAF is busy falling out of the sky as it's 40yr Nimrods and Harriers are disintegrating, and the Army is trying to fight a guerilla war with 50 rounds per man and relying heavily on the US for air support because we've never got round to replacing the Jaguar or the Buccaneer.
Marvellous.
Dunk76 said:
Say we have a rerun of 1982 - what then? We might be able to project 40 JSFs into the South Atlantic, but what's going to carry the Marines, the Ghurkas, the Guards, and the Paras?
Amphibious shipping is probably the one area that the RN has been treated fairly well over the past decade.In 1982, we had two LPDs (HMS Fearless and Intrepid) plus the six LSLs. In peacetime Hermes would have operated as an LPH but obviously had more important tasks in the Falklands.
Today, we have a dedicated LPH (Ocean) in addition to the two Albion class LPDs (Albion and Bulwark) and the four Bay class LSDs. One of the CVFs could perhaps operate in the LPH role.
Like 1982, merchant ships would probably be requistioned to transport men and stores south.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff