It should be obvious to even the biggest supporters of the F-35 that continued troubles in development should be expected.
If we can acknowledge that fact then it also makes sense for some of the air arms around the world to start lining up plan B's.
For the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Navy's air force, the EA-18G is the only option that makes sense.
Its very simple really. The Gripen is a nice light weight fighter but it doesn't have a naval version. It could be developed but we can expect additional costs, performance penalties because of the added weight and other problems that can't be predicted. The Typhoon is in the same light. It doesn't have a ready made naval version and converting it to carrier use will be problematic. The Rafale is a ready made candidate for use aboard Queen Elizabeth class carriers but its upgrade path is sketchy at best, its expensive as Tiffany diamonds and its adoption has only one benefit...to strengthen commonality with a European country.
The EA-18 is superior for a number of reasons. Its affordable, has a well laid out upgrade path and perhaps most importantly, the US Navy is making it the center piece of how it will fight into the future. Ever heard of the Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air (NIFC-CA) Concept?
As a plan B the Royal Navy will have the benefit of sliding into the most comprehensive naval air warfare concept on the planet.
Read about the concept here.
In my mind its obvious. The FAA will need to fall back onto the EA-18 when the F-35 goes belly up.
Oh and removing the ramp and installing EMALS will be expensive but not as expensive as buying the full allotment of F-35's.
Wouldn't they need the F/A-18 more than the E/A-18? The Growler is an EW platform and the F-35 is a strike fighter.
ReplyDeletei said EA-18 but i guess i need to change that to the hybrid Super Hornet. Boeing is suppose to be developing one that has everything except the jamming pods that can be a baby EA platform as well as a powerful strike airplane.
DeleteThe fact that the Sea Gripen is beding designed in the UK, I'm sure is the UK government hedging its bets.
ReplyDeletethe Sea Gripen has completely fallen off the radar. i'll confirm it but i seriously doubt anyone is actually doing any work on it.
Deletehttp://www.janes.com/article/31778/brazilian-f-x2-deal-gives-fresh-impetus-to-saab-s-sea-gripen-concept
Deletei'm well aware of that supposed win. however that occurred before the World Cup debacle and the Olympics fiasco coming up.
DeleteBrazil will not have the money to continue the program. that's my guess anyway. thats why i need to confirm that the sea gripen is still alive.
As you say, there is the kicker, EMALS + F18s is cheaper than, Ski-jump + F35Bs.
ReplyDeleteThe Brit carriers would be very potent if they have F-18s and were able to catapult launch E-2Ds as well as future X-47Bs.
Yes much cheaper, F18ASH with radar recievers, F18 Growlers, and E2 Hawkeye is much more powerfull combination. What is the point of a 'carrier' without AWACs, that is just stupid, AWACS is 100% necessary for aircontrol.
DeleteNaval Integrated fire - Again, the big difference between the Navy and Air Force is the integration of an aircraft. Unlike the Air Force the Navy has surface, under-surface and airborne platforms in it's force plan. Thus it has a much wider spectrum of ability to take on an adversary.
ReplyDeleteyeah but as usual the USAF sees something great and first they want to be part of it next they want to take it over just like they do air tasking orders that never get close air support where its needed.
Deletethere is a very good reason why the US Army doesn't trust the USAF and the USMC doesn't either.
they don't do close air support and they're getting close to not doing air defense!
ASH F-18 = Good enough for cheap enough.
ReplyDelete“That F/A-18E/F can push to the limits of its stealth technology as well,” Manazir said. “People think the F/A-18E/F is a fourth-generation fighter—can’t get close. That’s not true; the treatments that Boeing and PMA-265 at Pax [Patuxent River, Md.] have done to that airplane are such that we can get close in enough to be effective with the weapons we’re going to have on the airplanes here relatively soon.”
The 2 Queen Elizabeth class carriers being built don't have cat/trap. Going to the Hybrid Hornet would leave them with 1, likely 2, worthless ships.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo install a trap is not a big deal, a catapult is another story, but they don't need it. As I mentioned several times, the Super Grownets can take off from there easily.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2Cl3TnRyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fXNIWsN4uo
The Queen Elizabeth is big enough to operate with Super Hornets.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwAERRMw6QU
The QE class carriers do not have anywhere near the elec generating capacity req for EMALS. That option is off the table. No catapult, no angle deck, no arresting gear, no more discussion needed. It's the "B" or helicopters. The YT link from rhino is just Thales propaganda. They're not big enough for CATOBAR
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean, it has 112MW of electric production and original design was CATOBAR, how is this not enough? It should be modified for CATOBAR with an electromagnetic launch system.
DeleteInterestingly the British have their own electronic catapult system, Converteam (now owned by GE, designers of the EMALS) developed what they called the EMCAT which was cancelled when the F-35B was ordered. I'm guessing that whenever we need it they'll resurrect the project.
ReplyDeleteThe track bed and all associated infrastructure like the space for the extra engines are supposedly ready for everything to be fitted, sometimes our strange habbit to fit "for but not with" pays off. But I'm guessing that maneuvering several large engines into the bowels of the ship in ten years time should give some engineers a headache.
Personally I think that Rafales are the most likely second choice since they're fitted for European weapons and it could be compared by our politicians to the Typhoon (which everybody loves). Having said that because of how important the F-35 is to NATO members I think that it will be made to work somehow, even if that means gutting it and starting again with the shell, so we are probably stuck with it,
i could live with that. i'm kinda tired of the Brits hanging off our coattails. go the European route. it makes less sense will cost more money but it will be good to see the Europeans finally deal with the pathetic militaries they've assembled.
DeletePeople bouth the Rafale and the Hornet are cleared for Ski-jump...just the ignorance of this .....
ReplyDeleteHeavier Sukhoys can do it....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcSEHdRN07I
The Super Hornets have a very short take off distance capacity, a ski-jump only will facilitate their job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfFMxulKwdk
Folks, you also forgot Australia. We are also buying F-35 Gooneybird and we've got one light carrier (another being built).
ReplyDeleteThe only difference between us and the Brits is we've "hedge" our bets and we got 24 SH. I believe the last 12 of the SH are cabled up for Growler.
One minor thing that everyone is forgetting is that significant UK knowledge and skills and money went into the F35 especially the B version. Also UK companies will be building 15% of each one.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/news/press-releases/2013-press-releases/f-35-lifting-the-uks-economy.html
Really, isn't the powerplant american, bassically an inferior version of the F22s engine, same with the radar, the cannon is american, the hull was designed in america before UK participation. What parts of this plane are designed by the UK, and actually that is not something to boast about since it is junk. The powerplant is really large and the internal bays makes this a huge plane for a one engine plane.
DeleteJP is doing better with ATD-X designing advanced next-gen engine that has really high power-weight ratio, highest turbine heat output, really small relative to power output that makes allows for a smaller, lighter plane with higher thrust-weight ratio. F35 has done the opposite.
The problems with the F35 all go back to the "B" version fetish. Really the B model should have been a different plane and the A and C should really have been the F35. If the B model was never part of this program we might have actually seen a decent F35 at this point.
Delete@ Nuno Gomes
ReplyDeleteI took me time but I found this article for you. This proves that the Super Hornet can operate from the Queen Elizabeht with significant weapons load.
"Rietz told HT at Lemoore, which holds half of the US Navy’s striking power in the Pacific, “In our simulation, we discovered that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” Landing the Super Hornet on the Gorshkov would pose no problem since the warship comes equipped with an arrester cable. The 16 MiG-29K fighters that will come with the Gorshkov will land using this “trap” method."
http://publication.samachar.com/pub_article.php?id=1909638&navname=General%20&moreurl=http://publication.samachar.com/hindustantimes/general/hindustantimes.php&homeurl=http://www.samachar.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2632342/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ycCyvCYp5I
Few years ago, British want to change their carrier to conventional catobar, with meals and AG, in case of problem with F35B, they do the research for the change and finally the cost will be too expensive with purchase of F35A and F18 too.
ReplyDeleteF35 B is expensive but modify a Queen Elizabeth LHD to a Conventional air craft is more.
I bet at least someone in the U.K. right now is wondering why they didn't just try to buy one of our Nimitz-class carriers since we are considering decommissioning it. What you just described, sol, is essentially a Nimitz and would be much cheaper as well as fit the Royal Navy perfectly well. At least, it would fit better than the F-35B + Ski-jump mix that they have now.
ReplyDeleteTurning the Elizabeth-class into a catapult-launched carrier will be pretty expensive. I don't know by how much, but I'm pretty sure that it's nothing compared to what it will take to get the F-35B fully functioning. In any case, yes I think EMALS + F/A-18E/F/G will be cheaper and more effective than Ski-jump + F-35B.
What everyone keeps forgetting is that this carrier cannot handle a proper AWACS , meaning the C-2.
ReplyDeleteE-2 that is.
ReplyDeleteThe french have it.
Why complicated Emals or deck transformations? The Super Hornet/Growler can take off with heavy load from the Queen Elizabeth using the ski-jump, I just put the link in my last post.
ReplyDeleteTo install a trap is nothing complicated and the Osprey will operate as tankers or Awacs in the near future for the US Marines.
http://publication.samachar.com/pub_article.php?id=1909638&navname=General%20&moreurl=http://publication.samachar.com/hindustantimes/general/hindustantimes.php&homeurl=http://www.samachar.com
The SH does not have the same T/W ratio as naval Flankers or Fulcrms, its aerodynamic layout is inferiour compared to both.
ReplyDeleteBesides the UK carrier is a mystery, weights a lot more than the french De Gaulle but can't use fix wing jets.
Rietz told HT at Lemoore, which holds half of the US Navy’s striking power in the Pacific, “In our simulation, we discovered that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2Cl3TnRyM
Simulation ?? Any real tests ?
ReplyDeleteWhats the T/W ratio on a SH with a reasonable weapons loadout, say two fuel tanks , one amraam, two sidewinders, two 1000 pound JDAMs and a targeting pod ?
The MiG-29K possibly could make a ski jump from the new UK carrier ;)
http://malaysiaflyingherald.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/775653_10151935480077398_1100811728_o.jpg
ReplyDeleteAnd... The flanker is bigger than the hornet, but is aerodynamically superior and has a better T/W ratio.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need the T/W ratio of a rocket to take off from a sky jump, just enough speed. The Super Hornet fully loaded with gas an weapons can take off in less than 300 meters with out any ski-jump. The Queen Elizabeth is 284 meters long, with the Sky Jump the Super Hornet could take off in half distance. That's why the Ski-jump decks are designed for.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.queenelizabethcruises.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UK-aircraft-carriers-size-comparison.jpg
And if you have doubts' just put the 20% more powerful EPE engines to have a T/W ratio better than the Flanker.
ReplyDeletehttp://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=215610&d=1366385974
It could do a run from the stearn and take off. But if the british would be so desperate in order to cancel the F-35B buy. They might as well make a naval Typhoon .
ReplyDeleteBut jets are one thing, they do not have the AEW capability helicopters are one thing, Hawkeye another.
Not to mention buddy-buddy store tanking.
All in all if they have jumped with France on a new type of carrier design they probably would have gotten a better catobar design.
British ...