Critics of course have been heard too. Those "flat earthers" want the Royal Navy to buy a non-stealth airplane. Doesn't matter which one as long as it isn't the F-35.
But check out these photos from JeffHead.com...and the potential F-35B customers worldwide. Make note of all the LHA's that are being developed/constructed/planned in the pacific region. Understand that this list isn't complete either. Singapore has announced that its working on the Endurance 1600, an LHA class warship.
The US Navy is realizing too late that its concept of operation----the big deck carrier is facing a period of transformation. The F-35B will outsell the F-35C.
 |
| Cavour Class Carrier. |
 |
| 22 DDH- Japan. |
 |
| 16 DDH - Japan. |
 |
| Juan Carlos - Spain & Australia. |
 | |
| Dokdo Class - S. Korea. |
And that of course doesn't include the 11 US Marine Corps LHA's/LHD's that will be as capable as many countries aircraft carriers..
Many slam the concept of STOVL operations but the evidence is clear.
Expeditionary operations coupled with cost savings make it essential.
Hello Solomon,
ReplyDeletethe British situation is very different to that of the Marine Corps.
The Marines have got the United States' Navy and Air Force to back them up.
The Marines can concentrate on Close Air Support (C.A.S.) while the other air arms provide Airborne Early Warning (A.E.W.),air defence,deep strikes,ground surveillance and aerial refuelling.
For Britain,the carrier wing is everything.
Recent operations in Libya demonstrated that the Royal Air Force can only provide "part time air power" from distant land bases.
If the British want round the clock A.E.W. it has to come from the deck of a ship but rotary wing systems don't have the range,endurance,speed or altitude to support combat operations,round the clock,far from the ship in a less than permissive environment.
Without Hawkeye the United Kingdom ends up with full time sea and land forces supported by part time air power.
Without catapults there is no Hawkeye.
Then there is the cost.
Operating land based and helicopter A.E.W.,and replacing both in future,is far more expensive than buying and operating a small fleet of Hawkeyes.
Aerial refuelling is one of the biggest expenditures in the British defence budget with the new Voyagers costing about £12,000 Million.
One of the biggest consumers of that service is the Sentry A.E.W. aircraft,in Afghanistan 2001 the were using 60,000 pounds of aerial refuelling on each sortie.
F35B will also need more tanking than F35C,though F35C will need some buddy tanking packs to cover recovery emergencies but that will cost millions not thousands of millions.
There are no vertical landing ground surveillance assets so the British will have to supply that from a land base if they don't have catapults.
That land base will need force protection and logistics,neither of which is cheap (especially the transport aircraft),and a friendly country to provide Host Nation Support (H.N.S.) which won't always be available.
With catapults they get the opportunity to buy in to United States Navy carrier capable surveillance aircraft projects.
They also get the opportunity to operate the future Anglo-French Medium Altitude Long Endurance surveillance aircraft and other |Unmanned Air Vehicles,none of which could fly from a cattier without cats and traps.
In short,with catapults the British get round the clock air power from a sea base or a land base as required.
With the F35B and no catapults,the carrier is dependent on land bases always.
Air power can only be provided on a part time basis and the system costs are far higher so combat capabilities will have to cut to pay for that.
You can guess which capability the Royal Air Force would want to cut.
GrandLogistics.
We're not seeing the end of the supercarrier. CV will always be superior to STOVL as long as you can afford it. STOVL is a way for countries to get fixed wing at sea on the cheap (albeit at a reduction in capability).
ReplyDeleteThe other thing, too, is the F-35B (outside the USMC and RN) will be sold 5 or 10 here or there- maybe. The F-35C will be flying off 11 supercarriers even if nobody but the USN buys them.
ReplyDeletesferrin.
ReplyDeleteeven at reduced aircraft manning in order to have two squadrons and replacements you'll need upwards of at least 20 airplanes.
additionally the CVN is a dinosaur for more than just the fact that STOVL is more effective, its also about the platform. oh and those F-35C's flying off USN carriers are going to be supplemented by tthe F-18 and UCAV. that means at best one squadron per carrier.
the USMC is going to replace its entire fixed wing fighter fleet with F-35B's, weell except for the few that the US Navy shoved down the Marines throat.
again, the F-35C will end up being the most expensive version and the least sold model.
Regarding LHA and similar... Off the top of my head:
ReplyDeleteBrazil, South Africa, Malaysia, India, Turkey, Sweden, Canada and Algeria [those two last for a couple each] have made noises about buying a Mistral-class. I expect many [most?] of those deals to fail, but... looks like a revival of the CVE. If all of those were to come to fruition, that would be the size of the US mid-size flattop fleet. To which we should add ST/CTOBAR developments in China, India and, maybe, Brazil and Russia. And "pray" that the Japs don't come out of nowhere with one of their surprises.
The Thais are also saying something about an Endurance, but I don't know *which* one [120, 140 or 160; only the last one is flattop]. Still, considering previous experience with Thai flattops...
Take care.
Ferran.
Calling large carriers obsolete is simply an incorrect assumption. The RN carriers are 65,000 tons and designed to operate about 36 F-35's. The reason they are this size is to provide enough fuel, munitions, and support to enable sustained operations.
ReplyDeleteThe USN has been developing carriers for 90 years and they are large for myriad reasons mostly in regards to the ability to do sustained operations. There have been many studies over the years indicating that smaller carriers are far less efficient. Moreover, there's a threshold where you gain a lot of efficiency and the RN has this at 65,000 tons for it's designated air wing.
The USN carriers are soon to gain back a lot of the reach lost with the A-6, S-3, ES-3, and F-14 with the UCAS-D (X-47B follow on). Carriers doing long range ISR and strike with a low observable fighter sized UCAS is going to be a bit of a revolution in carrier ops.
Moreover, the force multiplier of fixed wing AEW really shouldn't be discounted. The capability to operate limited numbers of F-35B's off small carriers is not a substitute for larger carriers doing sustained operations, whatever the aircraft.
U.S. debt will eventually render larger carriers extinct.
ReplyDeleteSol, you heard about that open mike conversation between Obama and Medvedev?
yeah i did and it scares the hell outta me. more to come. ... about the open mike...
ReplyDelete