DIY

The Royal Navy doesn't take possession of the ship until it has been launched, fitted out and passed trials. Until then, it belongs to the builders, and they just work to the contract. Oh, you'd like to negotiate a contract *amendment*, sir? Please step this way. Bring your wallet.

Re: Radar opportunity....

And the E2-D Hawkeye which CAN launch from a ski-jump carrier. It was tested, although there is a question over what happens when an engine fails (when flying from a smaller Indian carrier).

If AWACS is a real big issue there is always the AW609 which is pressurized to 25k feet.

The V-22 is probably too expensive, by extension the E2 is so even if we had cats they may have never bought it.

Re: It's all so depressing...

Harriers aren't supersonic. It doesn't really make sense to be designing your defence strategy around 1960s technology.

Re: It's all so depressing...

Supersonic ain't all that useful. Most attack aircraft fly low and rarely go that fast (trees are harder to dodge). Also, given the fuel needed to get the stovl F35 off the deck, it won't be going supersonic far enough to make it worth it.

May as well have kept the Harriers...

So we will soon have gas powered, half-arsed, oversized, over priced helicopter/STOVL carriers, instead of proper, effective fleet carriers (should be nuclear powered too) and too few under-spec, overweight, inadequate fighters flying off them. Gordon and Tony should be hung for being played by BAe in the first place and DC and co. should be hung for lacking the balls to get the job done properly.

Re: It's all so depressing...

It does if that 1960s technology has proven capable of the role asked of it.

Re: It's all so depressing...

Not supersonic at sea level.....get it right !

Re: It's all so depressing...

That doesn't really matter, since you can move the airbase it flies off. Just park the carrier roughly in the right area, and presto.

Re: Sounds familiar

The best rants are those you keep repeating.

Re: And...

Saved ?

What about the contracts that they had to buy out of ?

Hmm ?

Re: French carrier

Yes, it's the one with the undersized reactor and the sometime missing propeller.

It's also the one that was available with a complement of planes for the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya.

Re: French carrier

The French carrier has spend half its life in dry dock, so it was a bit lucky to be available with 10 Rafales. Its now in dry dock again.

Re: French carrier

Actually, its disponibility is around 70%

Nimitz-class carriers are around 50%.

Of course, 30% of overhaul time is far more annoying when there's only one carrier...

Re: Would have been better off with

Except they weren't really were they because the radius of airspace they were able to control was small and declining because the range of the harriers and the helicopter aew was not keeping pace with the range, speed and stealth of potential adversary aircraft, missiles and submarines.

Re: Would have been better off with

The harrier has a very good combat radius and weapons load, better combat radius than the Hornet would you believe, because of the huge fan which is very efficient. In vertical take off its useless, but in normal operation (rolling ski-jump) its pretty damn good.

Re: This stinks

Carriers aren't used for defence, only for military adventures 1000s of miles away.

Re: This stinks

> The MoD owns the carriers, not BAE, right?

No, wrong. The builders own the ship right up to the point she's finished and handed over.

Re: This stinks

So you reckon blokes that have designed and are building (it's not yet been fitted to a US carrier or tested on one) a brand new untrialled at sea catapult system designed for a completely different aircraft carrier with different wiring and deck layout and superstructure are just going to rock up to a totally different half built ship and start knocking the walls in and laying pipe? Yeah right.

The carriers were designed so they can be fitted with catapults and I suspect if the trigger had been pulled much sooner before huge sections of the ships had been built and the EMALS design team had been involved day one then the original estimate might have possible.

Re: This stinks

Don't forget that taking into account an eventual catapult fitting was in the freakin' statement of work.

Don't forget that the initial costs of the TWO carriers was initially estimated at 3.9 billion. (I wonder how much the costs have ballooned since...)

Such a price quote looks like a breach of contract actually (It looks like BAE DID NOT took into account the fitting of the catapult and need to redesign almost all the ship.)

The conversion rate between dollars and pounds is lousy

Re: Faulty Tailhooks

It's a reasonable question, if they can't fix it in 8+ years they probably shouldn't have the job.

I'll bet my last pound that the hooks on the F-18 work today though.

Re: Faulty Tailhooks

Yes, the F-35C has failed every attempt at landing using the hook. Its a fundamental problem that may require the airframe to be redesigned, they are trying an alternative hook design which may fix it but that would an outside chance if it did.

Re: Faulty Tailhooks

"if they can't fix it in 8+ years they probably shouldn't have the job."

Strictly speaking they should stretch the aircraft (the position of the hook violates carrier aircraft design rules), which would be a massive job and probably destroy the F-35C. If they can defy physics and modify the hook to fix it, then all will be well.

Re: £57million

Given the likely cost of running the F35B, NOT destroying them might have a greater economic impact...

Re: £57million

I like the cut of your jib

(jib supplied by BAE Systems, £1million quid)

Re: £57million

Absolutely right. Any military historian will tell you history teaches us that quantity is AS IMPORTANT as quality. And you're screwed if you don't know how to use the kit you have.

Its fair to say that Germany had the best kit during WW2 but they failed to capitalise on it because they were unable to produce the quantities needed. The British Hurricane, American Jeep and Sherman and Russian T34 were all war winning bits of kit that were successful because of their simplicity.

Re: £57million

We were caught napping with Aircraft but soon caught up in design, but they didn't have overwhelmingly high numbers, they just gave the perception that they did which was enough to make us run away even though we on paper out gunned them both on the land and in the air.

You point on the Hurricane is correct, as that was the principle winner as its bigger better brother wasn't available in sufficient numbers until much later. Tanks we outnumbered them by a staggering proportion to start with but their tech was sufficient to kick us in the balls, just enough to make us think we were shafted, again the reality is we were not. Later in the war we did beat them on numbers and not tech.

But it think the point im trying to make is that initial victories for Germany were as a result of better tech and more importantly better deployment, ironically when their tech improved their ability to deploy was reduced through incompetence eventually leading to their downfall.

Numbers don't always mean victory as they will proved to start with, Christ, even back then the RAF and Navy were a each others necks, kinda makes you wonder who pissed of who first! :)

Re: £57million German War Kit

Best kit

Hmm I'd put Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster as better than anything the Germans had.

I do know that there was an arms race between Me/Bf109/FW190 and the various marks of Spitfire.

Re: £57million

@Dazza. So you're generally agreeing with me?

"and more importantly better deployment" = "And you're screwed if you don't know how to use the kit you have."

"when their tech improved their ability to deploy was reduced" = "history teaches us that quantity is AS IMPORTANT as quality"

£57m per plane is a strong indication that the F-35 will be too advanced to permit the in-the-field running repairs called for in full on combat situations. It is notable that there hasn't been a full on high tech air-vs-air war in so long that the last 40 years of development could be in completely the wrong direction. We'll probably just put a few drones in action abroad while the F-35 guard Brize Norton and Portsmouth Docks from members of the ramblers association. Drones allow us to eliminate protect ourselves from AK47s and RPGs in legally dubious wars for far less.

Re: too advanced to permit the in-the-field running repairs

1mm tolerance over the entire aircraft apparently. I know sod all about advanced warplanes but I think that means you can't fix it with a hammer. I do think we are advancing our technology to the point where sufficient cheap crap will win over small amounts of advanced stuff. Sort of an IED-in-the-sky scenario.

Re: £57million

Why waste munitions shooting them down? Given the dismal safety record of VTOL aircraft (primarily the Harrier, but including the Yak 38, arguably the V22 and other largely development types) they won't need to shoot them down, merely wait for them to drop out the sky. If the Harrier hadn't been invented in Britain, our papers would have queued up to christen it "the flying coffin" or something similar.

Before anybody reaches for the downvote button, have a look at this link below and question why our idiot government is proposing to buy a kite that combines the most expensive, complex attack aircraft ever developed with VTOL, given the Harrier experience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

Now you can downvote me!