British Naval Aviation should be sitting pretty right now.
They're about to get their F-35B's...The USMC is already looking at using the MV-22 as a refueling platform and you can bet that someone in the Commandant's office (or in the Assistant Commandant for Aviation) is already looking at the concepts for an early warning version.
So with the purchase of the F-35B and a few V-22's in the future, you can have a pretty impressive fighter force operating from those flat decks.
Sharkey Ward though is throwing cold water on the whole idea. via his news letter.
The Air Marshal does not appear to understand that the decks of U.S. Navy and US Marine Corps carriers are 4 inches thick - whereas our new carrier decks are no more than 1 inch thick. The Air Marshal’s comments are therefore misleading at best. Scientific/engineering judgement is that our thin new carrier decks will not be able to withstand the thermal effects of F35B STOVL vertical landing operations. There is therefore a massive latent/hidden cost waiting in the wings for the provision of a new and much thicker flight deck for our new carriers. Gray and Hillier should both be required to provide this cost estimate and place it in the equation for comparison with cat and trap costs.How much it will cost to reinforce the Elizabeth classes flight decks is anyones guess but it won't be cheap.
This will be fun to watch.
they were so close some years ago to finally take F18/rafale/ or hypothetic Navalized typhoon.
ReplyDeleteAnd they go back to F35.
This one isnt new, I have a lot of respect for Sharkey but he does blather on a bit sometimes. Thats not to say this isnt a problem, but it is known and has been known for at least 3 years in the public domain.
ReplyDeleteI believe the current proposed solution is deck coatings a la US LHA proposed solutions and or reliance on a rolling landing to reduce the directed heat.
What could be easier than welding three inches of steel to the deck?
ReplyDeleteYou can't add that amount of steel without studies, because the ship could kell over, or simply be unavigable in many condition... I'm not expert..
ReplyDeletefabsther is right that much steel would compromise the ability of the ship to maneuver, how many aircraft it could carry and it's speed plus endurance it might take years to figure out!
ReplyDeleteBUT!
A thicker layer of steel in the only areas the F-35 runs hot would be simpler and faster.
It's not going to be steel.
ReplyDeleteAs Guthy pointed out, the US Navy will pay for the development and production start of coatings to minimize the effects as well as the development of whatever take off and landing profiles can minimize the effects.
As long as the UK carrier decks are as thick as US amphib decks (and I don't know, I just assume they have to be since they were designed for CTOL) the UK will just draft behind the USN's work, saving them a ton of time and money.
I expect embarrassment and whining about costs, but when you're committed to the F-35 program a few million for deck coatings isn't even round off error in your cost escalation problems.
why are you assuming the US Navy is going to pay for modifications for a BRITISH carrier? are the brits now another nation receiving US aid?
DeleteSol I don't think BB1984 is implying that the BAE/UK MoD will be sponging off the the USN. I should think they will be paying the going rate for the current coating of choice. Nobody, but nobody in the defence industry ever does anything for free. The costs are always recovered somewhere.
DeleteIf we work on the basis that BAE's products tend to end up working despite their general commmercial scheming, lying and sometimes downright incompetence. Then id say that its highly likely the problem has already been addressed. Its also likely BAE/UK MoD already have or will contribute in someway towards development of new coatings/methods, our williingness to go our own way at times to reinvent the wheel generaly at some enormous cost is comendable at times and bloody stupid at others.