This is a discussion on The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by TimmyC
How do people view the reasoning behind the UK selecting the F-35B variant of the Lightning ...
How do people view the reasoning behind the UK selecting the F-35B variant of the Lightning II? Do people see that this selection is because like the USMC the RN has a unique history of STOVL? Or are there people with the view that a STOVL configuration carrier has been selected as this is the cheapest design and support option compared to the likes of STOBAR / CTOL? Do many consider this to be a justified approach considering the F35B has the shortest range and lowest payload due to the different engine?
I am by no means an expert but I read a, self proclaimed, expert saying that an F-35C purchase should be considered, even at this late stage and that the second UK carrier should be equipped with the same catapults as the French carrier. The Queen Elizabeth can fly Harriers at first, as planne and be refiited, as designed earlier than planned.
For commonality, the RAF could fly F-35C's.
The advantages of this were, the F-35C has better range, payload and can return with more expensive unused weapons. The catapults would allow better AEW, tanker and COD. The disadvantage was the F-35B can use shorter runways with the RAF.
The current carrier design though, is more than capable for the vast majority of designed missions but if Cold War 2 were to start they would not be Champions League.
Methinks that, like theType 45's, they are not the best we could build but the best we can afford to build.
Last edited by Preceptor; October 26th, 2007 at 04:19 PM.
Reason: Layout
Methinks that, like theType 45's, they are not the best we could build but the best we can afford to build.
We all feel proud about our new warships the T45's, heralded as the best AAW ships in the world, only please don't swamp our 48 VL missiles as we couldn't afford any more..!
only please don't swamp our 48 VL missiles as we couldn't afford any more..!
If someone could afford to throw enough planes and missiles into the fray such that they could battle through a F-35 cordon and exhaust the 48 reserve, who's to say they wouldn't have enough to suck dry a ship with 64 or even 80 missiles? There are few countries out there with that sort of firepower, and we either would have little cause to fight them or would only do as part of a larger group.
I would much prefer to see an eight-ship class with 48 missiles a piece than six with 64. Also it's worth remembering that when MBDA's new missile family comes out (one of which will be ship-launched for AAW) there may be a quad-packing option to replace the Aster 15.
We all feel proud about our new warships the T45's, heralded as the best AAW ships in the world, only please don't swamp our 48 VL missiles as we couldn't afford any more..!
On a more patriotic note - Long Live The Queen.
For god sake when will this pointless bashing stop. the T42 has only 22 missiles the T45 has over double[48] Whats The Problem
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
If someone could afford to throw enough planes and missiles into the fray such that they could battle through a F-35 cordon and exhaust the 48 reserve, who's to say they wouldn't have enough to suck dry a ship with 64 or even 80 missiles? There are few countries out there with that sort of firepower, and we either would have little cause to fight them or would only do as part of a larger group.
I would much prefer to see an eight-ship class with 48 missiles a piece than six with 64. Also it's worth remembering that when MBDA's new missile family comes out (one of which will be ship-launched for AAW) there may be a quad-packing option to replace the Aster 15.
And there's always the option to add another 24 VLS, & more CIWS &/or some RAM launchers or whatever to soak up leakers.
I've thought for some time that something like an Aster 10 (slimline version for quad-packing, shorter-range supplement to Aster 15) & Aster 25 (same but with longer booster to fit in Sylver A50) would be handy.
And there's always the option to add another 24 VLS, & more CIWS &/or some RAM launchers or whatever to soak up leakers.
I've thought for some time that something like an Aster 10 (slimline version for quad-packing, shorter-range supplement to Aster 15) & Aster 25 (same but with longer booster to fit in Sylver A50) would be handy.
Inability to quadpack a point defence weapon is a serious disadvantage for PAAMS compared to AEGIS at the moment. The equivelant of a Type 45, an F100 has the same tube count, 48, but because of ESSM has a load out either 40 SM2/SM3 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM2/SM3 and 64 ESSM. Thats 72 and 96 missiles compared to 48 on the Type 45. A slimeline, quadpackable Aster 15 is definatly needed IMO.
Inability to quadpack a point defence weapon is a serious disadvantage for PAAMS compared to AEGIS at the moment. The equivelant of a Type 45, an F100 has the same tube count, 48, but because of ESSM has a load out either 40 SM2/SM3 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM2/SM3 and 64 ESSM. Thats 72 and 96 missiles compared to 48 on the Type 45. A slimeline, quadpackable Aster 15 is definatly needed IMO.
This relates more to the advantage fo the Mk41 launcher and Quad pack ESSM than to the advantages of AEGIS as such.
Cak - Can you quantify the following statement: "The current carrier design though, is more than capable for the vast majority of designed missions but if Cold War 2 were to start they would not be Champions League."
Do you anticipate Russia and China having carriers equiped with aircraft more capable than F35B's, and escorted by DDG escorts more advanced than the T45 when the QE and POW become operational. If so please expand on your research?
AFAIK ESSM is utilised by AEGIS equiped ships rather than PAAMS, which utilises the ASTER missile family, hence my point.
ESSM is not soley carried by AEGIS equipped ships. The first Tico curisers had rails lauchers and were still AEGIS. The ANZAC frigate has Mk41 and quad pack ESSM and is not AEGIS. Since you are discussing the abiliyt to fit a number of missiles in a cell it is a luancher issue hence my point. I would suggest to tie this to AEGIS is inaccurate representation.
ESSM is not soley carried by AEGIS equipped ships. The first Tico curisers had rails lauchers and were still AEGIS. The ANZAC frigate has Mk41 and quad pack ESSM and is not AEGIS. Since you are discussing the abiliyt to fit a number of missiles in a cell it is a luancher issue hence my point. I would suggest to tie this to AEGIS is inaccurate representation.
I dont dispute that non AEGIS ships can use ESSM, as you pointed out the missile system is in service with ANZAC's in the RAN, which are sertainly not AEGIS equiped. However i was making a comparison between AEGIS and PAAMS systems, and my point was that AEGIS equiped vessels can use quad packed ESSM's, were PAAMS equiped vessels (because they use the ASTER family of missiles) can not. And the fact that AEGIS can utilise a point defence missile system that can be quad packed were at the moment PAAMS can not is a real advantage that AEGIS holds, IMHO.
Cak - Can you quantify the following statement: "The current carrier design though, is more than capable for the vast majority of designed missions but if Cold War 2 were to start they would not be Champions League."
Do you anticipate Russia and China having carriers equiped with aircraft more capable than F35B's, and escorted by DDG escorts more advanced than the T45 when the QE and POW become operational. If so please expand on your research?
Unless they are going to produce de gaul/nimitz esk carrier's with catapaults, AEW and a navalised PAK FA then I think CVF should be sitting quite nicely. And considering the carrier programes of the nations envolved, even if cold war 2 breaks out, they should be the 2nd class of carrier on the planet. Hell i wouldnt mind one.
The following link leads to the dedicated RN T45 Daring site, which inlcudes more specific information on weapons and warfare departments etc. Note the 30mm guns are linked to the same fire-control system as the 4.5. Phalanx is also mentioned as 'fitted' , which must refer to the units removed from T42's as they are retired from service.
