HMS Prince of Wales headed to the United States in September and has now begun a series of test flights with various aircraft to inform the development of future Royal Navy carrier aviation. Here we cover the first part of the deployment and the start of these trials.
After the setbacks that have plagued HMS Prince of Wales’ entry into service, the long-planned Westlant 23 deployment is finally underway. She was originally expected to undertake this trip in early 2021 but this plan was derailed by a serious internal flood caused by a burst saltwater main in October 2020. The impacts of COVID combined with pressures on the RAF budget conspired to delay the trip until August 2022. The now infamous propellor shaft issue experienced as soon as she left the wall resulted in another postponement of more than a year. After repair in Rosyth, an uneventful Atlantic crossing has proven the propellor shaft repairs to be sound and the ship can look forward to taking over as the RN Fleet Flagship next year.
Having completed the first mission of the deployment, fixed-wing logistic UAS test flying off the coast of Cornwall on 4th September, the ship headed west across the Atlantic. She was replenished by RFA Tideforce before the tanker detached to support the UK Carrier Strike Group in the North Sea. While the RN has both aircraft carriers at sea this Autumn, the RFA only has two operational tankers available right now.
Officers from the USS Donald Cook and Winston S. Churchill joined the carrier for the voyage from Mayport to Norfolk and fully integrated in the ship’s routines.
14 aircrew from USMC 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing qualified to operate from the deck of HMS Prince of Wales. The MV-22 Osprey has a similar payload capacity to the Merlin Mk4 – around 24 fully equipped troops but can carry them higher, faster and further. Ospreys have operated from RN carriers regularly over the last decade (including HMS Illustrious), but it is important for US crews to be familiar with RN flight deck procedures. Ospreys are likely to operate from HMS Prince of Wales during the operational deployment in the Pacific region planned for 2025.
Westlant 23 is not an operational deployment but is focused on developing aviation capability for the carriers through a series of tests and experiments. There are 3 main phases – the first (now completed) is familiarisation flying by various US aircraft types operating from the carrier. In particular the MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor. So far on this trip, aircraft that have operated from the ship include Chinooks, Merlin Mk2, Wildcat, V-22 Osprey, F35-B Lightning, AH-1Z Vipers, UH1 Super Hueys and USCG MH-65E Dolphin helicopters.
The UK is very unlikely to ever be able to afford its own Osprey fleet but it’s important that USMC (MV-22B), USN (CMV-22B) and UASF (CV-22) aircraft are interoperable with the QEC carriers. V-22s conducted day and night flying off the coast of Florida in various configurations so as to define the Ship Helicopter Operating Limits (SHOL). These provide a guide for safe flying from the ship with different loads and in different environmental conditions.
HMS Prince of Wales was officially hosted by Carrier Strike Group 10 and USS George H. W. Bush while alongside in Naval Station Norfolk – the world’s largest naval base. The ship will operate from the base this Autumn and will make several visits. She sailed from Norfolk on 11th October, having embarked a 200-strong test team from the Pax River F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) and their equipment.
Phase 2 of the trials will last around 4 weeks and is the key component of the trip. This should see the completion of the third set of F-35B and QEC first-of-class Developmental Flying Trials (DT-3) which were begun on HMS Queen Elizabeth during her Westlant 18 deployment (DT-1 and DT-2).
With the 6 wing pylons and the internal bomb bay filled, the F-35B in ‘beast mode’ can carry a maximum load of 22,000lb of bombs and air-air missiles. (Nearly 3 times the payload of the Harrier GR9).
For this trial, the test aircraft was loaded with inert 500lb Paveway IV laser-guided bombs and inert 1,000lb Paveways in the weapons bay. To date, F-35s have typically been taking off from the 350ft marker on the deck but fully loaded, they need a longer run. This test launch was from the 850 ft marker, the first time a full run-up has been tested on either carrier. The inert bombs were dropped on a US range, the first time an aircraft from HMS Prince of Wales had dropped ordnance.
Further development of the F-35B Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) manoeuvre is the most anticipated of the DT-3 serials. Under most conditions the F-35B is recovered by hovering at the side of the ship before moving sideways over the deck and descending slowly. During SRVL the aircraft approaches the ship directly from behind at relatively low speed. A combination of thrust from its nozzle and lift-fan and lift created by air over the wings allows it to land with up to 7000lbs greater all up weight (UAW). Without SRVL capability, the F-35B would be forced to ditch some or all of the unused fuel and weapons when returning to the ship. Fuel is a precious resource and munitions are expensive. For example, a single AIM-120D AMRAAM missile costs around £2.4 Million. With limited stocks and such a price tag, not something you want to casually jettison into the sea if unused.
QinetiQ has developed a system of lights, known as the Bedford Array, that is embedded in the centreline of the flight deck and used to guide pilots during SRVL. This has been in development for some years and was proven using a Harrier test aircraft, with a total of 230 SRVL approaches flown on board the French carrier Charles De Gaulle in 2007 and HMS Illustrious in 2009. The Bedford Array is unique to HMS Prince of Wales and has not yet been fitted to her sister ship.
A first tentative SRVL landing was made on HMS Queen Elizabeth in October 2018 but in benign conditions without weapons. 5 years later, the SRVL envelope will be expanded by adding greater loads to the aircraft and by attempting the manoeuvre in high winds and with a wet deck. There is obviously an element of risk involved as there is no arrestor gear and only the landing gear brakes to stop the aircraft. It will be important to define the safe limits for SRVL and the deck space needed as during high-intensity flying operations it will not be viable to clear the flight deck of other aircraft.
The video above briefly shows the first SRVL on HMS Prince of Wales also in very benign conditions, followed by some test flying in high winds. As the ITF pilots and staff push the envelope further, details of progress will doubtless emerge in the coming weeks. In November, a third phase of the deployment will see the first flight of the General Atomics Mojave UAS from an aircraft carrier.
Photos: Royal Navy, US DoD, US Coastguard and UK Military & Defence Staff in the US. Congratulations to LPhot Finn Stainer- Hutchins and the media team on board R09 for documenting the deployment with outstanding images and video production.
Compare with the image of MV22 upon on CVL’s flightdeck above. You can see why the USN is keen on the ships. Shame the MoD did away with some of the features to make them Marine friendly.
Perhaps you could explain a bit more.
Space for MV22.
UK has a different and probably better choice
But I am not talking about the UK. I am talking about US aircraft.
And an aircraft designed for the maritime environment is always better than one that is not.
Did I say the US should choose it ? Anyway ‘Space for MV-22’ was alluding to what vessel
The guy Duker always has to lower the tone of the conversation.
lets play this game
Different, but not better.
The design of PWLS (only) was to going modified to allow a RM Commando Group to be embarked in a secondary role of LPH. The proposed changes included assault corridors for the movement of heavily loaded troops, additional accommodation, spaces for vehicles and military stores, workshops, 8 rather than 6 helo spots, and possibly the ability to operate LCVP’s. In the end the idea was dropped (c.2014?) as the cost of the mods kept increasing (hitting £70m IIRC), whilst the insanity of operating a £3bn capital ship in littoral waters given the potential risks and threats was belatedly recognised. Remember that HMS Ocean only cost £154 million to build in the 1990’s – and the cost of the mods to PWLS was becoming similar to a major life extension refit for Ocean, or a substantial proportion of a new build LPH/LHD.
If a ship with fighter defence and AAW escort can’t risk the littoral, can anything? If modern shore defences are so threatening, then large scale amphibious capability is effectively unusable. So is it time to scrap Bulwark, Albion, landing craft and concentrate on small scale stealthy insertion?
Yes and that’s what will happen
Its more a question of risk and resources.
And its a question as old as time.
Could Battleships do shore bombardment? Yes. But why then design Monitors with battleship calibre guns?
I think that your photograph is of the USS Nassau which is out of commission and has been scrapped.
I thought the Tarawas didn’t have the rectangular bit of the forward superstructure. USS Boxer perhaps?
nope that is USS boxer.
Yes, you are correct..
?rev=54091cb46b2d4139bcbb535ab07e80c6
Do you know what features besides space the MoD did away with to make it less Marine friendly?
Spaces for armouries etc.
The wide passageways are built in already.
QE never had any design for operating as an LPH, while PoW did have some
Both have this feature, its not just for deep sea fishing
Given the weapons in U.K. service could you get even close to a 22k lb load? Even for testing something much heavier than a 1,000 must have been used if they got up to the full 22k load.
The FAA/RAF were never going to trouble the 11-ton theoretical maximum. 4 tons is probably it for UK beast mode. I wouldn’t have expected them to need an 850ft run up either, which is more what I’d have thought the USMC would use without a ramp, but I suppose you start out safely until you understand the limits.
Really?
Fuel + bomb bay + pylons – for non stealthy ops?
As others have said it could be internal weapons + drop tanks for outbound and then drop before entering the radar envelope.
Point is more about flexibility?
The more flexibility you have the easier it is for mission planners to achieve the desired outputs.
For weapons, I think so. If you include fuel, of course not; F-35B carries 6 tons of internal fuel off the bat! To me beast mode is about the delivering the largest payload per sortie, not delivering smaller amounts further away.
The Royal Navy spokesperson said
So I don’t think they meant fuel either. If you tot up the maximum weight of the internal and external hardpoints you might get to that number, but you’d have to take off with almost no fuel and immediately mid-air refuel to achieve it. What I was thinking was
The primary weapons are
Paveway IV – 500 lb = 226 kg
Meteor – 419 lb = 190 kg
ASRAAM – 194 lb = 88 kg
AMRAAM – 335 lb = 152 kg
Spear 3 – 220 lb = 100kg
Right now there are 4 slots in the bomb bay, four relatively unrestricted hardpoints under the wings and two wingtip pylons that will have ASRAAM.
6x Paveway (4 internal plus 2 external) = 1360 kg
2x Meteor = 360 kg
2 x ASRAAM 176 kg
Less than two tons including pylons. Even if they manage to develop weapon racks to carry three Paveway per hardpoint under the wing, giving up to 16 Paveways and 2 ASRAAM, I think that’s it for weapons at about 4 tons.
I agree about the drop tanks and that could push things higher. LM’s proposed 500 gallon drop tanks (600 US gallons) for the F-35A weigh about 1.8 tons each. Perhaps my interpretation of beast mode is just prejudice.
Could be handy when the f35b get external fuel tanks. Also it gives the platform room to grow in the future.
Engine limits are already at maximum due to cooling requirements being more than expected , No future weight growth at all
Hence the plans to increase engine power that have occupied acres of newsprint/internet
Engine upgrades are coming. The exact form of the upgrade is being fought over by P&W and GE.
There is no GE power plant for F35.
The engine upgrade is just to manage existing power requirements – which exceed those forecast
The original requirement for drop tanks was ‘dropped’ and hasnt come back
I note the reference to ‘limited stocks’, slightly worrying given the events going on in the world! UK needs to sort out all this out.
Though that is true, the article meant it in the sense of chucking a £2.4m missile into the ocean.
Limited stocks onboard….even US carriers don’t carry unlimited amount of munitions…
Correct.
UK ‘Beast Mode’…(hate that term) is 6 x Paveway IV, 2 x Amraam and 2 x Asraam at present. With pylons that is c4,500lbs total. Full fuel load of 13,000lb’s leaves around 10,000lbs left….
Even when the UK’s Block IV weapons arrive after 2027 the max weight of weapons doesn’t increase massively (8 x Spear, 4 x Paveway IV, 2 x Meteor and 2 x Asraam). With the pylons and 2 x BRU that doesn’t go over 5,500lbs…
Until we see external tanks or FCASW integrated we will not see a UK F-35B anywhere lose to max load….
The pylons can carry double 1,000lb pave way or 2,000lb GBU-84 aka the ‘hammer’. UK should build JDAM kits domestically like many countries do (Italy/Israel etc) instead of relying on the more expensive pave way.
I may be wrong, but I think the argument is that Paveway is laser guided (can be considered more accurate, could potentially be used against slow moving targets), against JDAM which is GPS guided. There are benefits to both (harder to jam/spoof a laser guided bomb, like the Russians are apparently doing with GLMRS and JDAM in Ukraine), but I would agree with your take that we should operate both. Particularly with those ER wing kits.
Paveway IV is both Laser Guided and GPS guided (with a strapdown INS as well). It’s the best of both worlds in that regard.
The need for this came out of the Kosovo war. UK aircraft were unable to safely drop munitions on an ungodly amount of missions due to weather conditions. This also resulted in the requirement for increased bring back requirements for F-35B, that also led to the requirement for SRVL. Because FAA Sea Harrier had to ditch huge numbers of weapons in the Adriatic as they were unable to safely engage targets. We ditched more munitions than we dropped….
Initially this need was addressed with Enhanced Paveway II and III which added a GPS guidance method (called EGBU). Paveway IV baked it in from the start and included a more advanced Fuze amongst other improvements like IM.
Where possible the choice is always to use laser guidance as it complies with strick ROE, GPS is very much as a backup (for example you could set the weapon to be laser guided, but if the laser spot is lost the weapon either goes to the last known location on GPS or flies to a safe area for detonation). But you can also drop, for example through cloud cover, as GPS/INS only.
Personally I’m a big fan of gliding wing kits. Paveway IV was briefly studied using the LongShot wing kit, that has since been used as the basis for HAAWC which will carry Mk.54 torpedoes from P-8 Poseidon.
I’m also a fan of the UK just going and purchasing, not manufacturing, 1,000-2000 x 1000lb JDAM direct from US production facilities. They could be used from both Typhoon (the Germans have integrated JDAM) and F-35. Bigger bang than Paveway IV at less than half the price. Massive increase in our stockpile at a cost of £50-100m. I wouldn’t bother with licence production as it would just add cost and time, the US lines are hot…
It’s the way the USAF plans to go after the PLAN if they try to cross the straits.
Honestly, I’m struggling to see what any weapons in the inventory will bring an F-35B close to max load (not a bad thing to have growth potential).
JSM is 500 kg / 1,000 lbs, so even that isn’t a major weight. I don’t see FC/ASW being massively more than that- maybe with a booster for ground launch but that isn’t applicable to here.
FCASW down the line
Is that back in the schedule for F-35? I thought they dropped the requirement.
Are you sure it wasn’t just Storm Shadow that was dropped from the F35?
FCASW will be a 3,000lb class weapon.
External tanks, if they’re 600-660 gallons will be a 4,000lb class store.
Hope to see many SRVL in CSG25
Maybe.
Depends a lot what is found on this test campaign and when in ‘25 the fleet leaves. If either the concept needs an additional round of testing or if the procedure needs a significant training package there may not be time before this deployment. The F35 training system is already likely to be stretched to crew the airwing planned for this trip without adding a pile of additional work.
Just for clarity, the default shipborne landing technique for the F-35B will always be VL. It’s highly automated, proven, and has been safely used 10,000’s times by the c.200 aircraft delivered to date. SRVL is a backup technique for the recovery of heavily loaded aircraft which places far more demands and stress on the pilot. But it’s a technique that the under-powered SHAR2 would have greatly benefited from using when operating from the Invincibles’ in the Arabian Gulf and other hot climes in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.
Good point on Sea Harrier and SRVL.
If it is fully integrated into the automated flight laws then I do t think it will be occasional.
You don’t try the difficult stuff when heavily loaded after a stressful day……you practice it endlessly……
The other thing about SVRL is that it reduces wear on the lift fan and engine so probably increases maintenance intervals.
Indeed why would you do something that has greater impact on flying ops and increased risk as a routine..likely to slow down sortie rates etc..I suspect this will be documented, Practiced to keep skills up but only ever used in specific circumstances.
I disagree – doing something higher risk occasionally will multiply the risk factors.
Greater impact ?
The deck has to be cleared for STO, its still a lesser space for a RVL, usually have one or the other. Mostly the RVL will be training missions
As these carriers will presumably be in the Med in event of war with China (allowing the US to concentrate the big Fords in the Pacific), I wonder how much training we will see with them there?
Huh ?
I wonder when the carriers will go into the Med for training there. Sorry, wasn’t worded well.
QE spent time training in the Med on its way to and from the Pacific a couple of years ago. I’d be surprised if the same isn’t true of PW in 2025.
An informative article with many interesting photographs so thank you, Navy Lookout. By the way, does anyone know where and when is 809 Naval Air Squadron?
Sounds like next year.
Just remember it’s just an administrative title. 809 will be no more or less FAA/RAF than 617. Members of both services will serve in all roles on both squadrons.
It’s now supposed to initially stand up December this year, although it could of course slip again.
The next full Carrier Strike Group deployment will centre on HMS Prince of Wales in early 2025 with the aim of embarking 24 F35’s from both 617 & 809 squadrons.
I’m afraid given the slip in deliveries because of the TR-3 delays there is no way 809 will have a full complement of aircraft until the last couple of months of 2025.
There will be around 40 jets in UK hands by early 2025 so enough in the system for 809 to potentially borrow jets and crew from 207 OCU if the aim is to get both the former and 617 embarked with 12 F35’s apiece.
RAF doesnt allocate planes to squadrons anymore. While aircrew and operations might be , the planes themselves are ‘base pooled’.
So the idea of a particular squadron having ’12 planes’ , while might occur on a deployment on the carrier , back home its shared
Great update and great pics. Possibly an error in regards to the Bedford Array. Janes and Aviation Week report that HMS Queen Elizabeth has only a short fixed array, whilst Prince of Wales has the full-length gyro-stabilised version of the array.
Its only ‘deck lighting’ with some clever optics and allows the deck lights and the HUD images to align
this shows diagrams from the patent
https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15821
It’s not “deck lighting”.
The Bedford Array is a gyro-stabilized glidepath alignment cue using lights. This is a common concept in aviation, the novel feature here being the gyro-stabilisation compensates for the movement of the flight-deck. Like most effective ideas, simple in concept.
So comrade, how is the Admiral Kuznetsov doing these days? We all sorely miss it for its comedy value.
Thats what I said – “deck lighting” which uses deck lights, who knew ?
I provided the link to the patent which explains better …”
The Bedford Array is not for lighting the deck. It is for displaying the correct glidepath for landing. Big difference, but you know this, you’re simply feigning stupidity in an attempt to belittle its usefulness.
I know what it is and how its used. The link to the patent and full description – which I provided the important details.
The real advance is the in deck lighting is cued with the HUD or helmet display .
The previous glideslope ‘meatball’ didnt have the connection to the planes own optics , but relied on its optic array for the pilots eyes
But keep up the Hamas style bomb throwing , it can only flash back on you
Just ignore and leave the man to his own devices, you cannot argue with stupidity.
Next thing he will be landing on Magic mushroom
Glad to see you enjoy Kuneztsov travails , its a 30 year old carrier with poor maintenance after all.
Does your slapstick show include the very new Prince of Wales travails
2020 https://www.navylookout.com/one-of-the-reasons-the-royal-navy-needs-two-aircraft-carriers-a-setback-for-hms-prince-of-wales/
2022 https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince-of-wales-leaves-dry-dock-today-as-repairs-are-completed/
Actually poor design, poor construction, poor maintenance, poor operation, all bedevil the comedy carrier Kunetztsov.
So in the 4 years since commissioning you cite a burst pipe and the propeller misalignment as “slapstick” for Prince of Wales? For the Kunetztsov those two failures in a week would be classed as a good week. Burst pipes aren’t rare, the propellor shaft issue is more serious, but then you’re not a serious commentator so you’re not interested in details. However both of these were remedied quite quickly. Whereas the Kunetzkrap spends years in maintenance and comes out of it as bad as when it went in.
Careful comrade, you’ll be sent to a Storm-Z unit for such criticism. But it’s not just poor maintenance, but poor design, poor construction, and poor operation, that all bedevil the comedy carrier Kunetztsov.
So in the 4 years since commissioning you cite a burst pipe and the propeller misalignment as “slapstick” for Prince of Wales? For the Kunetztsov those two failures in a week would be classed as a good week. Burst pipes aren’t rare, the propellor shaft issue is more serious, but then you’re not a serious commentator so you’re not interested in details. However both of these were remedied quite quickly. Whereas the Kunetzkrap spends years in maintenance and comes out of it as bad as when it went in.
I wonder how much it would actually cost to have a small wing of ospreys for our carriers.
The reason why not is already sitting on the PoW deck.
Merlin. This is a much larger and more capable helicopter than MH60 or UH-1Y the marines and US Navy use.
Indeed our naval rotor fleet is better than most specifically because Merlin is probably the best and largest medium navel rotor on the market.
Look up what Japan paid for a small fleet. Best to be sitting down when you do!
For the relatively small advantage they would give and the vast expense the a better uses for the limited resources.
The only advantage of the Osprey is that it lets your assets sit further offshore… which seeing as we don’t have an actual LPH would make them a sensible addition to our forces as it would mean that the carries could fulfil the role more safely.
But the costs are crazy: If two LPHs would cost £1bn, you’d maybe get 8 Ospreys for that. (Aware the operating costs are vastly different but then so would the utility of assets).
I do often wonder if the US Marines would let us borrow some more frequently. I noted that the USMC F35b had PWLS on the side!
I take your point. However in the AEW role the Osprey would have been superior to the Merlin since it can stay aloft for longer. But too late for that now and the next AEW platform will probably be a drone.
The MV22 ceiling is almost twice that of the Merlin which really helps with the AEW role.
What AEW role for the MV22 ? Is this the game they play in MoD plays where british kit is rubbished, while imaginary US type has all these ‘unobtaniums’
Clearly you dont know the F-35B is the new AEW capable long range type for the RN with Crowsnest for looking after the backyard
It really doesn’t make a huge amount of difference.
No V-22 with AEW was going to operate at 25,000ft.
The aircraft is not pressurised….crew would be on oxygen all the time…which is frowned on….
Actual radar distance advantage to a V-22 AEW operating slighly higher than Merlin Crowsnest is around 50 miles….
The answer is to stick it on a UAV that can hit 40,000ft as standard with long duration patrols….
I am really hoping that the Predator trials go well and we buy some…
We would be better served developing a European middle range tilt-rotor to fulfill the new medium range rotor craft capability, especially in view of the V280 win. Next gen tilt rotors are now a thing. The Osprey’s and Merlin are now old designs.
It is a fair indication of how important USMC see the QEC program as being.
They really do like QEC as it is an optimised operating environment for F35B.
USN also like it as it gives another big deck to cover another tasking leaving them to do their thing.
I wonder if we should just accept we don’t have the cash and make them a Joint USMC asset. The RAF can’t afford to share the F35s. We could gave the deck bristling with Ospreys, Predator drones, Merlins and F35s, eventually supported by T45s that work, T26s and FSS for proper US rivalling CSGs…
(Of course the incremental investment to achieve the above would be perfectly affordable to the UK…. just lacking the will)
There are more Bravos out there than Charlies. And concentrating a lot of that stealthy fifth gen capability in one hull would make a lot sense for the USN / USMC.
Agree
F35B is selling very well to close allies. Italy and Japan being the obvious ones who are likely to cross deck at some point too.
Never mind the USMC’s huge and growing Bravo airforce.
Um. Yes. That’s the odd thing. Bravo will eventually fly from more decks than West’s CTOL capability (USN + MN). But without the US Navy Dept wanting to invest more in VTOL it is in a way a dead end. If the MoD had put effort into CrowsNest then perhaps some other country would have bought it. The Italian Merlin based AEW effort is a halfhearted effort. We need to control BVR missiles from AEW cab to make the most out of having a fifth gen fighter.
If the US are serious about defending Taiwan from the PRC then you would think it would have crossed their minds how important 36 Bravos could be in air-sea battle.
I would just be happier if something was done about CrowsNest. 🙁
The F35 is an advanced AEW system on its own
a lot of puffery from Loren Thompson but it gives some idea
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/05/13/how-a-super-agile-electronic-warfare-system-makes-f-35-the-most-invincible-combat-aircraft-ever
Wrong.
And the system is made by BAE and puts EW and countermeasures in one system.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system
That reminds of something I always wondered about. In films like Top Gun, and in real life photos, you’ll often see the pilot’s name painted on the side of the cockpit.
First: does this mean that’s the only pilot for the duration of the deployment, or is some poor sod tasked with looking up who is flying which craft the next day and painting on the names? (I know it’s a dumb question, but I’m asking it anyway.) With pilots having different fatigue rates to “their” aircraft, it seems very inefficient to assign them one for one.
Second: do all the paint markings affect stealth coatings?
It depends on how MILSPEC the LPH were?
If it is a full spec they would be £1Bn a piece as they would be 30-40kt……
If you want something really cheap’n’nasty HMS Deathtrap MKII then £300m would do it. RN wouldn’t do that again as it won’t meet class rules and is money-pit-central.
They are a nightmare. The software stack is in so much disarray each cab is virtually a sub-type in its own right.
Are you talking about CrowsNest?
Or are you taking about Osprey?
Where was CrowsNest mentioned in Wasp Snorter’s comment?
I believe the PoW will be sent to the Middle East or Indian Ocean.
Her aircraft compliment will be enhanced by F35s from the USMC and Uk.
I’m gonna say it. All that deck space and a single Merlin. I think these are amazing ships and the Navy is going in the right direction (albeit too slowly) esp. compared to Army and RAF, but one solitary Merlin is laughable.
It’s not an active op it’s there doing developmental trials… it’s doing flight testing..we have another carrier that is trotting around on an active opp…why exactly would we be sending over operational F35Bs..when we have orange wired F35Bs sitting in the US to do exactly this sort of work…it would be irrational to fill the ship up with operational squadrons..when it’s not doing that.
Those were American F35B’s not UK. QE is not exactly bristling with AC….or escorts for that matter. Big handy thips though.
The 3 UK trials aircraft are at Edwards AFB in the west of the US.
The Integrated Test Force uses whichever aircraft are free for tasking…hence the name ‘Integrated’.
There is no point flying over the UK aircraft from Edwards, interrupting the test schedule in the process just for some willy waving over national markings…
The data gained is the important part…
It’s a good thing the US and UK are acting like adults through this…
I get your point about Edwards, but this is the test schedule at the moment for the RAF/RN.
VX23 is busy too
QE has 7 F35Bs on board, 2 lynx and 3 merlin.
We have far too few aircraft and the ones we have are tired from the GWOT. The RAF is in a far worse state than the navy (circa 100 aircraft in combat air) and with the planes being shared, obviously the RAF needs them to undertake their commitments as well. The Navy at least has a glimmer of hope: these carriers are fantastic assets if we finished the investment, top of the line SSNs, T26s, FSS…. whereas the RAF are waiting around for Tempest in 2040….
Yes but let’s compare it with the potential threat..how many aircraft does Russia have in an operational navel air wing, or china or Iran…as long as out air wing can match the threat then that is acceptable.
Saddest line in the whole article:
“ While the RN has both aircraft carriers at sea this Autumn, the RFA only has two operational tankers available right now.”
All fur coat and no knickers as the saying goes?
It has always been like that, remember HMS Hood? One hit and the whole ship blew up.
With the added benefit of a non-existent air group and and nothing for escorts… Hard to see how that is well played.
The UK’s two aircraft carriers are just status symbols, the last dying gasp of the British empire to distract the world from the fact that the UK is in its death throes. Any day now, I expect both carriers to be repossessed by the bank for failure to make payments!
God forbid, 400 years of history go down the drain, who will rule the waves then?
Debt interest 116B vs Defense 68B.
The US spent $476bn on debt interest…. it’s not good, but it’s a western world thing not a UK thing.
What’s more amazing….. how much we spend on benefits, how little kit we get for our £68bn…. how bad our healthcare is for all that spend…
US 2023 FY is $663 bill for debt interest according to CBO, $745 bill next year
And your country China has USD 14,243.76bn debt for 2023
Look on the bright side the US spend 4trillion a year on healthcare….Germany spends 413 billion..so our 245 billion on health is best described as modest.
infact we have spent sod all on healthcare for 75 years when compared to our peers..
Exactly, we have less government spend per capita on healthcare than the USA, which doesn’t even provide anything like universal coverage for that cost.
Albeit it’s a bit dysfunctional in places, the NHS is exceptionally good value for money.
Both UK and Germany have similar health spend as % of GDP – before covid as there was an increase-decrease because of that. Thats they way to compare and its France thats more of a match to Germany.
Want higher taxes with that ?
Theres 85 mill Germans compared 67 mill Brits too
Two perfectly useful wave class tankers just sitting there…. how much is it saving us being alongside? Probably a number equal to five minutes of NHS funding.
They’re alongside because there are no crews for them. The problem is primarily recruitment and retention only money in relation to that.
The RFA clearly has a problem with R&R but I suspect the need to crew RFA Proteus in a hurry also has something to do with it.
And it’s better to have hulls with no crews, than no hulls, because in an emergency RFA personnel could be supplemented by civilian volunteer crew or reservists.
Also 6 tankers in the RFA compares favorably even with the USNS in terms of the fleet size supported per tanker. No other country besides the USA has this level of coverage.
Other than comment on Proteus I agree with everything you say.
It is now five years since the first QE class carrier deployed back in 2018…..
Therefore I am frankly a bit staggered that the RAF/FAA are still doing what many people would describe as “early-stage development trials” on the F-35.
There is no good reason whatsoever why:
could have – and indeed should have – already been performed, completed and verified.
That type of exhaustive procedure has always been called “Test Flying”.
Why have this testing not already been completed, on dry land at RAF Marham, over the past five years?.
Then, once these early trials have been successfully completed and written into the F-35’s instruction manuals; shipboard trials should only be necessary to verify the parameters for shipborne vertical rolling landings (i.e. in both adverse weather and also on a rolling carrier deck).
Therefore, by waiting for a carrier to be at sea before starting these basic flying tests, it is no wonder the UK’s F35 force is taking so long to bring up to operational readiness.
Peter the Irate Taxpayer
Obviously this is the first time an F-35B has ever tried a SRVL and they thought they’d do it on a ship just for giggles to make it really hard.
Nope it’s been done before on HMS QE.
Before that with a special FBW 2 seat Harrier on a number of carriers: Illustrious , Invincible Charles De Gaulle ( although at first the solution was sought for a vertical landing on the rolling, pitching heaving deck)
https://airsciences.org.uk/bedford-rae-aircraft-harrier-xw175/
What makes you think these weren’t done at on land? And Prince of Wales is persuing bad weather to test SRVL on a “rolling carrier deck in bad weather”.
So you’re complaining about what’s happened when, in actuality, it’s exactly the same as what you’re proposing…
(Though more likely the land testing would be at Patuxent River where the Orange-wired test aircraft are, rather than at Marham.)
Sean,
I made two related points in my post:
Fully Loaded F35 Tests
“To date, F-35s have typically been taking off from the 350ft marker on the deck but fully loaded, they need a longer run. This test launch was from the 850 ft marker, the first time a full run-up has been tested on either carrier.”
As I said in my post, that very-basic test should have been done at least five years ago…..
Indeed, it is “quite staggering” that the F-35 is even in “full” UK operational service without that one key test having been performed…….
(To make a hypothetical comparison. If, theoretically, the F-35 was classified as a civilian airliner….. If the F-35 ITF had submitted this plane’s certification documents to the Civil Aviation Authority without this very-basic test being in their documents = the CAA would have immediately filed it under their classification WPB (Waste Paper Basket)).
SRVL Tests
It has been well-known, for many years, that the F-35 & QE carrier programme would need SRVL.
Indeed the USN noted, as far back as their post-action reviews of Gulf War 1 (Desert Storm) in 1991 that carrying (and returning) precision weapons’ onboard all of their carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would be essential in all of their future operations.
The very-obvious operational requirement for SVRL is to prevent the need to dump a bomb into the wet stuff. (Sorry: as this is NL…. I mean say… “Very carefully deliver any unused precision ordnance into a pre-designated sea area”, for disposal …. )
Thus, using the SVRL technique on the two QE class carriers would, as others have pointed out, have the following operational advantage’s::
Therefore, regardless of where these basic SRVL test were undertaken (i.e. either in the UK or the US of A) – once again this most basic of early-phase testing should have been done several years ago.
regards Peter the Irate Taxpayer
If this is a UK operation, why in the hell? Aren’t UK aircraft doing it. This is a joke. The US Marines do not need to practice this.
What makes you think USMC pilots were flying it? The test aircraft are pooled. But the USMC are very interested in SRVL so I could see them involved at some point.
Sorry Peter, are you an Air Marshal or a Rear Admiral? Am guessing you must be one or other given you think you know better than the RAF or FAA.
You think the these tests should have been carried out in the first-year that QE was commissioned? Well in wartime such things are rushed, but thankfully in peacetime we don’t place our pilots in unnecessary risk. We’ve already lost one F35 in an accident, your rushed schedule could have seen more lost – including pilots.
The SVRL tests for the F35 programme actually began in 2007 with Qinteq using their test Harrier aboard the Charles de Gaul as proof of concept. Though of course this was the culmination of several years work in developing the concept. They then continued aboard HMS Illustrious using a prototype Bedford Array. So you’re completely and utterly wrong to suggest that SVRL tests are a recent occurrence.
(Maybe if you weren’t so irate you might have the time to look up the facts before venting?)
And yes, it’s obvious to anyone that SRVL is a good idea with the cost of missiles being what they are. Which is why I suspect a lot of other F35B operators will be knocking on the RN’s door once they have mastered it.
First SRVL aboard a ship, at night, has just been completed successfully.
Sean
I made two points in my first post, then repeated them in the second post. However you have ignored the first one (i.e. the most serious point) and belittled the second.
The test programme should be completed before any aircraft goes into operational service. That is a very-basic definition of what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) calls a test programme.
Not completing that test programme properly, and/or then not properly documenting the test results, is what puts our pilot’s lives at risk (and it also increases the sales of Martin Baker’s ejector seats).
In my post, I made it quite clear that any civilian airliner would have to be certified having established the fully-loaded Rejected Take Off (RTO) distance. My key point was that key distance had not (according to NL’s report) not been established by the F35 programme until just two weeks ago.
Furthermore, any civilian pilot who had not taken into account the appropriate RTO distance when calculating their plane’s take-off run would have – in the event of their plane overshooting the runway and ending up stuck in the grass – be instantly demoted from chief pilot down to junior stewardess (or steward).
Knowing any planes’ RTO distance is pretty basic stuff…..
Accordingly, you have skipped over my key point (rather nicely it has to be said….) My own opinion on this subject is the same as the opinions of armed service’s own the gold-braided brigade. The official report into how and why that F-35 joined the Goldfish Club was written by lots and lots of Air Marshals and Rear Admirals. However their names were redacted (probably to protect the guilty).
The loss of the F35 in the Med back in November 2021, which occurred in full view of the BBC’s TV cameras, was nothing whatsoever to do with test or development flying. That was full operational flying, near the end of very long deployment by the carrier. Furthermore, those flying ops from QE were at a tempo which the full official report (published August 2023) subsequently described as “surge rate” – i.e. that particular accident happened during high-intensity flying ops from the UK’s first carrier.
This is, verbatim, what the August 2023 edition of the full official report into that November 2021 crash of the F35, when it joined “Diving Club Med”, actually said:
1.4.229. Aggravating factors. The following was an aggravating factor to the loss of BK-18. a. The panel noted that it was standard procedure for aircraft to take-off from a position as far forward on the deck as possible, usually 350ft. The accident was reproduced in the simulator with the aircraft starting at the 500ft point. It was determined that in this scenario, had the abort decision been made after the same elapsed time, it was possible to abort successfully. Accordingly, the panel concluded that the selection of the shortest take-off run was an aggravating factor.
Thus, summarizing it in PEE (Plain Essex English) so without the bull***:
Therefore the official report into the Nov 2021 F35 crash fully confirms my opinion (not yours). Furthermore my opinion is exactly the same those expressed by Air Marshalls and Vice Admirals. It is just that we have expressed our opinions using slightly different words…….. In short, we all agree that the F35 flight test programme and/or the instruction manual was inadequate
What you have just said is that you honesty believe this particular test programme fir SVRL has taken sixteen years and counting…. That is not rushing it = that is just lazy. Frankly, that overall timeline shows a complete lack of focus by the RAF and FAA.
If, as you strongly imply, the “root cause” of this delay for getting SVRL to full operational service is within QinetiQ’s sphere of influence, then they should now be hauled over the coal’s (or whatever you do nowadays with QinetiQ on an all-electric warship).
Then, taking your last point, that the first SRVL has just been successfully completed aboard a ship. I assume that you are referring to the USMC aircraft and pilot landing onboard HMS Prince of Wales last week.
Therefore, I suspect that this week will be when other F-35 operator’s start queuing up outside the USMC = to learn how to do an SRVL (And thus save money by not drop expensive PGM’s into the briny).
The FAA and RAF are both, jointly, still “well behind the curve” with getting the much-needed F-35 into operational service.
Furthermore, not having these vital tests completely and properly documented properly, several years ago, is what is putting our pilot’s lives at risk.
regards Peter The Irate Taxpayer
Sorry, I thought both posts were utterly pointless because they were so facile…
The F35 is not a commercial airliner, it’s a warplane. Once an airliner is certified to fly passengers from A to B, that’s it, it’s not generally required to gain further capabilities. Whereas the F35 is in a programme of continuous development, adding new capabilities with each technical refresh, with each new software block etc. Every military aircraft that has ever been operational has undergone further testing as further capabilities were added. A very recent obvious example was the Typhon, long in operation as an air-superiority fighter gaining strike capability. That was tested while the Typhoon was in operational service.
Not having an ongoing development and test programme for a warplane dooms it to rapid obsolescence.
Your rambling bluster concerning the loss in the Med is completely disingenuous. Commercial aircraft don’t use the maximum length of a runway just because it’s there. They’ll use the length required for their load. Similarly they won’t use the maximum possible thrust the engines can achieve, they will calculate and use what is necessary.
As UK F35s have not previously been carrying a full load (‘beast mode’) of munitions they only needed the 350ft take-off mark. Indeed had they used the full 850ft without a full load the F35 might have been airborne before/on the ramp – the USMC do this on the 843ft Wasp class after all.
Similarly we have not been dumping munitions into the sea to land, so STVL has been unnecessary thus far for operational purposes.
The F35 is operational service, has been since 2019, which allowed CSG21 to take place.
The SRVL programme has been going since before 2007. You can shout and stomp your feet as much as you like, but that’s established, verifiable FACT. Obviously this project couldn’t operate continuously due to other items on the critical path that has to be completed first, eg obvious ones being actual development of the F35 and building the carriers. Then of course, there’s always the possibility that funding stops work in any given period; the MoD does not have limitless funds, and funding on projects is often staged.
Not understanding the complexities of project and programme management doesn’t give you the right to slander our servicemen or defence contractors as being “lazy”.
You clearly don’t understand the use of the word “Integrated” in the title of “Pax River F-35 Integrated Test Force (Pax ITF) ”. It means that while it’s has British and American aircrew and aircraft, it operates as a SINGLE unit. Major Gucwa happens to be the test project officer for DT-3 so he’s the best pilot to conduct the SRVL landings. Or would you suggest a less qualified pilot who just happens to have a British passport? It’s ridiculous to suggest that he might, as an American, not share the full results so maybe it’s simply that your anti-American xenophobia is showing?
(I implied nothing about “QinetiQ”, that’s your delusional imagination working overtime again.)
Sean,
Unlike me, you seem not to be familiar with the statutory (mandatory) safety requirements that always apply to all complex defence programme’s. I’ve run them: you have not !
You need to read AP3456; the RAF/RN’s primary (flight) school textbook. This is given to aspiring pilots as their bed-time reading. (Hint: it is available, completely free of charge to you, on your new-fangled IT (Internet Thingy)).
AP3456 explains how all modern RAF and RN flight practices have evolved over many decades of hard-won (often fatal) experience.
It describes, in very great detail, all of the key principles of fight. Volume 1 starts off by describing “air”. It then moves on to the more advanced stuff, like “atmosphere”.
Replying to each of your key points in turn:
Aircraft Upgrades
Almost all aircraft models, both civilian and military, are regularly upgraded throughout their long lifespan. Please think of how many popular models of jet airliner’s were first designed and test flown well over thirty years ago.
Most aircraft designs are changed quite frequently. Each time the design of any aircraft is changed to gain some extra capabilities, that new model (i.e. often called a sub-type or a batch) needs to be recertified.
Thus any military aircraft and/or civilian airliner being built today will, more often than not, have very-different certification from that given to the very-similar looking models which were first built and flown three decades earlier
For example, a late model Being 747 Jumbo bears very little resemblance to the prototype which was first flown in the early 1970’s.
Accordingly, your first point, that it is only the military who upgrade and regularly recertify their aircraft, is simply wrong.
Statutory Requirements for Military Flight Safety
Strictly speaking (i.e. legally) the requirements of the Civilian Air Navigation Orders (administered by the CAA) do not apply to military aircraft.
However, and this is the BIG BUT, ever since Crown Immunity was removed from the UK military (back in the late 1980’s / early 1990’s) every Secretary of State for Defence has always insisted that military and civilian flight safety rules are very closely coordinated.
Therefore, as the law of the land today applies to one and all, the two sets of aviation safety regulations, military and civilian, are frequently developed, written and applied in lock-step with one another.
Accordingly, and I strongly suspect that many people reading this post on this naval-oriented website will probably find my next point “quite surprising”, the MOD/RAF/RN now operate and certify their aircraft “broadly aligned” to the CAA’s safety requirements for operating civilian aircraft.
To quote, verbatim, from AP3456:
“Thus military aircraft are provided with scheduled performance data, and for normal operations adopt the equivalent civilian regulations. Where for reasons of military necessity these regulations are relaxed, the authorization to do so is held at an appropriate level”.
Then, later on in the same document, specifically for fast jets:
“Normal Operating Standard (NOS) (see Volume 2, Chapter 9 Paragraph 11). NOS is broadly equivalent to civilian standards and provides an equivalent standard of safety. For some types, particularly fast-jets, NOS will not replicate civilian standards but will be as near to them as can be practically achieved for the type”
Note the words at the end = “can practically be achieved”.
I would be the first person to admit that these two sets of UK aviation safety standards are not fully aligned. However all of the key engineering principles are, surprisingly to many, very similar.
The critical issue – that having two very-different sets of rules could be the root cause of serious incidents when many different types of planes have to operate within the same airspace – was first recognized here in the UK back in 1956. Back then, several major differences between civilian and military equipment (and especially ATC terminology) directly led to the very-high-profile crash of a Vulcan bomber, whilst it was attempting to land at Heathrow Airport (Note. That one ultimately lead to almost all military planes being fitted with ejector seats).
All in all, you have not appreciated that the days of Biggles working to a completely different set of safety rules to the civvy’s are long-gone.
Thus, your second key point, about military and civilian aviation safety rules being totally different, is therefore wrong.
Military’s Certification (including Reduced Standards)
This is a very boring suite of documents called RA 1310 (Air Systems Document Set).
As I noted just above, the detail in these documents is surprisingly closely aligned to civil aviation standards…. .even if the military will not publicly own up to it!..
Within this pack is a certification standard that allows for the safety standard(s) of a military aircraft to be reduced. In those few cases, MAA RA1330 can be applied. This accepts that servicemen’s (and women’s) lives may, sometimes, be put at increased risk (i.e. when compared to a civilian).
However, using this standard is only permitted when there is a very good operational reason to reduce the safety standard (i.e. imminent combat operations or urgent contingency planning). Even when this standard is used, this mandates that the correct full testing and certification must be put into place within five years (ideally within one).
Therefore all of your comments that imply, just on the F35 programme alone, that this plane’s certification process can be ongoing over many decades – without seemingly the plane’s testing ever being properly concluded – are, frankly, “rather concerning”..
Full Operational Service
You then stated that the F35 has been in UK operational service since 2019.
In reply, may I be so bold as to suggest that – if during those past four years – the F35 has only been capable of carrying half of its full (i.e. its as designed) bomb load then, by definition, this plane is only partially in operational service.
I shall no put it in simple terms. You seem think it is quite OK for the UK to operate two planes = just to carry one plane’s fully-laden bomb load!
Therefore, to return to the civilian analogy. I have to ask you if British Airways buy their new planes, from Boeing or Airbus, knowing full well that they can only be filled half full of passengers during their first four years of operations? I really don’t think so….BA would be a laughing stock (or rather, more of a laughing stock).
Therefore, we will now have to “agree to disagree” that the F35 has been in full UK operational service during these past four years.
Reduced Power on Take-Off
You are quite correct with your point that many aircraft do not need full power to achieve lift, and thus take-off, at the end of the runway. We can agree on that one.
However, once again, you appear not to understand that this type of procedure applies equally to all civilian and military aircraft. Indeed, it is a very common practice. It is routinely used, to avoid burning out the engines.
Once again, this is fully described over several pages in AP3456:
“This procedure is known by differing names e.g. Graduated Power Take-off (British Airways), Factored Take-off Thrust (Royal Air Force), Variable Take-off Thrust and many others”
Therefore your key assumption that this procedure is only applicable to military aviation is wrong.
Take Off Distances
AP3456 contains many (typical) charts (graphs) that are examples of how, in almost all conceivable circumstances, a pilot must calculate their correct take-off distance (and later on, take the opposite approach when landing).
Throughout all of these numerous charts, the aircraft’s weight, the runway length, engine power and braking force (performance) are all very closely related. Thus all of any aircraft’s key design parameters are all interlinked.
For any particular model/type of plane, these charts should all be derived from early stage flight testing and /or design calculations.
Normally, all of the take-off and landing characteristics must be established (and certified) before any plane goes into full service.
Indeed, the pilot of any jet which is in operational service will only know the right power setting(s) – and thus establish the required runway length – to use for any take off once that key set of parameters has been correctly established, and documented, by extensive test flying (and, very often, computer simulation).
Any significant changes to the aircraft’s specification during its lifespan will change the parameters on those charts. Your example of the Typhoon was actually a quite a good one. (For example, if the aircraft’s design is changed to increasing the thrust of the engine; that change may well also require fitting more powerful brakes = then recertifying the whole aircraft as “one package”).
That any pilot may choose to, in many circumstances, only use a reduced power setting does not excuse my key point.
I believe that a full-power test of a fully-loaded F35-B plane would “normally” have been completed at the very earliest stage of any plane’s flight testing cycle (i.e. several years ago).
Therefore, your next key point – that you personally think that it is quite OK to do this fully loaded test on the F35 in 2023 at DT-3 – is, and how do I put my next words politely = “quite an unusual practice”..
It really ought to be put out into the open by the MOD as to why that key test on the F35-B was not completed within DT-1.
Rejected Take Off (RTO) Distance(s)
The key point in my first post – which is the one which you still seem to be in complete and utter denial about – was that the F35 programme team should have established the plane’s RTO distances many years ago.
You seem to think that is quite acceptable for them not to have done so. You then covered up this key issue by describing it using a phrase beloved of so many civil servants and McKinsey-trained management consultants = “continuous development”;
Therefore, to quote once again from AP3456:
“The performance plan is part of any flight plan and is concerned solely with the safety of the aeroplane. It determines that the aircraft can: a. Take off safely within the runway length available and with enough distance remaining to abandon a take off if required.
Do you not understand the meaning of those last 11 words?;
The F-35 Crash of November 2021
In my post, I offered my own opinion that that the F35 crash back in November 2021 only happened because of several very-sloppy operating procedure’s.
Nothing you have said about that crash in your recent post changes my own views on the – numerous – root causes of it.
When, due to red gear being inside the nozzle, its engine failed to deliver the required power = all-in-all, that one was an “absolutely-classic” causation of an RTO. It was an event that was predictable!
Therefore:
I suspect that am probably rather more experienced at reading between the lines of these official MOD reports than you are….I had always assumed that the very-highest security classification was applied by the MOD to the F35’s official crash report before it was published, which is:
TS-VERTIGO
“Top Secret, Very Embarrassing. Redact That Information = Gets Omitted”
Furthermore:
Conclusion
In my own personal view, all of these testing processes on the F35 have been done at the correct point in time within the plane’s development cycle; i.e. , several years agon
Also the (much-needed) F35 development programme will not be the first – and it probably won’t be the last – occasion where somebody has forgotten to write into the pilot’s manual some of the most-basic engineering principles (aka the usual laws of physics)..
Finally, at some point in tine – hopefully sooner rather than later – RAF/RN F35 fleet will have to fully certified according to the MOD’s own UK flight safety textbook(s), obviously so it can carry its full bomb load.
—————————————–
Finally,
.
In your very-frequent posts, can please ask that you do not trot out a quite-remarkably feeble set of excuses for bad practice. On this occasion, your list of excuses even included that rather hackneyed line that the MOD “hasn’t limitless money”.
Can I ask that, if you want to disagree with me here on NL, please can you post your remarks as a thoughtful and reasonable set of comments.
If I have got it wrong, which does happen occasionally, I will be the first person to own up to a mistake
I do not intend to reply to any of your quite-extensive personal insults.
I now join that ever-growing club of “experts” whom you have recently insulted on this website.
regards Peter The Irate Taxpayer
PS. Hint. Typhoon, as in the RAF jet, is always spelt with two letter “o”‘s.
Great article and fantastic pics, well done.
Seconded!
A useful addition to the USN fleet.
Great article and pics and videos.
Aside from what happens in the next few years as to whether the carriers will ever carry their designed load of F-35s, seemingly unlikely, I am wondering what the plan is for the future when (or if) the Tempest program takes over. Apparently the Tempest is not officially intended to have a naval version, but by then the F-35 will be out of date and probably still not up to the desired numbers. I am encouraged that in other articles there is talk of restoring the cats and traps, that would be great.
Failing that, why not use the old system that India still uses of unassisted takeoff with their MIG 29s, sailing into the wind at 30 knots and the 1,000 ft deck runway should make that feasible for a 180 knot takeoff assuming 100% thrust to weight ratio in the chosen aircraft.
Just curious,
John
The main criticism of STOBAR is that it is an efficient use of desk space. But seeing as we only can have afford a truncated air group and the CVL’s are so large perhaps that won’t be a problem. I haven’t paid any attention to Tempest. If the early artists’ impressions feature canards in a similar position to those on Eurofighter that might suggest that the true design won’t be suitable. But it is early days yet.
The question is whether the USMC of the future will want fixed wing CAS. F35 was a real jump from Harrier. It’s a win for us we get a fifth gen stealth fighter. But for the USMC it is probably too much plane. Never mind the increase in size. Supporting fires could perhaps be delivered in other ways perhaps.
Lastly the global order is shifting. We might find ourselves concerned with just looking after our patch of the Atlantic without a need for carriers. Or perhaps we will need to
be seen to have the ability to help to ‘reach’ Australia; keeping the West’s SLOC open.
I think the USMC will make more use of them than we will. Perhaps we should just offer to crew them and have them integrated into the US’ ARGs? And then T26 could stay in the Atlantic and ‘protect’ the UK.
Let me know when type 26 actually hits the water for real.. it’s a cool story for right now
The first Type 26 “hit the water” 11 months ago… try and keep up old chap.
STOBAR is the worst of both worlds in terms of deck area used and safe parking area. More importantly, the aircraft tend to be limited in launch weight. It’s a bit more complicated than simply going 180kts please, I’ve got the thrust to weight. What you actually end up with are limitations on ramp entry speed (a LOT less than 180, or even 150kts) for a variety of reasons. All of which mean that you’re staggering off the ramp at nothing like your theoretical max T/O weight.
Has any nation ever produced significant impact in an actual war using STOBAR?
It strikes me that the third tier navies (China/Russia/India) employ STOBAR carriers mostly as an egotistical token exercise, because such setups don’t have any credible military output, and certainly not one worth the huge sustainment costs of a CSG.
Notable that China is now pursuing CATOBAR (with great difficulty) since they obviously realized STOBAR is a waste of time