An artist’s rendering of the future HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier. Royal Navy Image
Posted on 09/21/2015 5:49:50 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
LONDON — The U.S. Marine Corps will deploy its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II strike fighters on combat sorties from Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, a senior U.K. Royal Navy officer has confirmed.
Rear Adm. Keith Blount, who is responsible for delivering the two 65,000 ton ships, said that using Marine aircraft and pilots to bolster the U.K.’s nascent carrier strike capability would be a natural extension of coalition doctrine.
“We are forever operating with allies and within coalitions. It’s the way wars are fought”, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Aviation, Amphibious Capability and Carriers) and Rear Adm. Fleet Air Arm told an audience at the DSEI defence exhibition in London on Wednesday.
“In order to get the best out of [the U.K. carrier program] we have to be able to situate it in a coalition context. That could mean that we operate with an American ship as one of the protecting escorts”, Blount said.
“But … given the fact that the U.S. Marine Corps are buying and will operate the same type of aircraft as we are buying and operating, it would make no sense whatsoever if we were to close down the opportunity and potential of the U.S. Marine Corps working from this flight deck. “So yes, I expect the U.S. Marine Corps to operate and work from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. We are going to get the most bang for the buck we can for the U.K. taxpayer, and that’s one of the ways in which we’ll achieve it.”
While Blount painted the co-operative arrangement in positive terms, it will disappoint critics who believe the U.K. government should provide the R.N. and Royal Air Force (RAF) with sufficient resources, in both aircraft and manpower, to regenerate the country’s carrier air wings independently.
Each of the 284 m-long carriers, fitted with a ‘ski jump’ bow ramp instead of the catapults and arrester wires once planned, will accommodate up to 40 aircraft: short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B strike fighters, helicopters, or a blend of fixed-wing and rotary tailored to the mission in hand.
Britain took delivery of its first Lightning II aircraft in 2012 and currently has three; the fourth is due to roll off Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth production line in January 2016.
“We have people in America now flying these jets”, said Blount, who disclosed that the RN had recently recruited its first ab initio F-35B pilots. “The first frontline jet they will ever fly in will be the F-35 … that’s how close we are getting to this. “When I was at Edwards Air Force Base quite recently I met 140 sailors and an equal number of RAF personnel that are in the testing and evaluation squadron to bring this aircraft online. This is genuinely exciting stuff, and this aircraft is a world beater for what it is designed to do – an exceptional platform.”
Britain’s F-35Bs are scheduled to arrive at Marham Air Base in eastern England in mid-2018, achieving initial operating capability by the end of that year. A deployable U.K. carrier strike capability should be ready by late 2020.
Blount said he was also “very excited” about the opportunities presented through Joint Helicopter Command to operate Apache, Chinook, Merlin and other helicopters from the Queen Elizabeth class. “Getting rid of the cats and traps actually makes this a far simpler proposition, and one of the reasons why this capability is so versatile and useful to us,” he added.
An artist’s rendering of the future HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier. Royal Navy Image
I simply don’t understand the two island design, and why the UK didn’t build a real CV with arrested landing and catapults is beyond me. If you don’t have an AWACS in the air, you are at a disadvantage.
“Build it, they will come”
Catapults cost too much...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs
yea, yea. I know that cost is a factor, but what really costs too much is a CV that can’t protect itself.
They can’t afford them. That’s why.
L
Then they can't afford a CV.
It's not unlike building a modern destroyer without an air-defense system, because the system makes it too expensive.
The Brits barely got by in the Falklands against a marginally equipped Argentina, operating at the maximum combat radius of their enemy. No small part of which was luck. Had they still been operating their Phantums, they would have had air supremacy.
Who is the modeled threat that these VTOL carriers are supposed to address?
It's happened for a few reasons.
Remember, these two carriers are not nuclear powered, and the way the turbines have been situated within the ships design and their need for ventilation, the most effective way that could be found for air intake and exhaust involved two separate 'funnel' structures. That's the major reason for the two islands - each one incorporates one of the 'funnel' systems. If you only had one island, you'd still need the second funnel structure.
Secondly, the ship is capable of being operated and fought from either of the islands. One island can be out of operation and the ship can still function. It would not be as effective as both operating separately (with one handling the ship, and one handling flight ops) but it's a major redundancy feature - you can handle both operations from one island in an emergency.
It has also been suggested - although this has not been confirmed and probably will not be - that the twin island structure has given the carriers a reduced radar cross section in comparison to the single island that would have been used instead.
and why the UK didn’t build a real CV with arrested landing and catapults is beyond me. If you don’t have an AWACS in the air, you are at a disadvantage.
As has been said, it's down to cost. If the Navy had held out for the type of design you favour, they wouldn't have got the carriers at all. Yes, the compromise makes them less effective but it's still more effective than not having carriers at all.
The fact is, in most scenarios, the Royal Navy will still be operating against forces that are significantly inferior in both technology and power projection. These aren't the carriers you'd want to fight World War III, but they are useful in scenarios like the Falklands or Borneo or Sierra Leone - what are referred to sometimes as the 'small wars' - that Britain has been involved in quite a few times over the last fifty years.
If protecting itself is enough, the new British carriers will get helicopter-borne AEW systems. Not exactly a patch on the Hawkeye, but something is better than nothing.
I find the coverage ranges questionable for self-defense. The attackers will not be dropping iron bombs.
Secondly, I'd say simply that defensive capabilities are not enough. The purpose of a CV is power projection.
Thanks for explaining the two-island reasoning.
I can’t say I agree much with their reasoning though, but then I don’t see much value in such an expensive CV that is only good for little wars involving Borneo or Sierra Leone. Why invest in F-35s to fill the decks of such a carrier, when the Hawker Sea Fury could take out the enemy and not require catapults? Yes, I’m being facetious, but marginal half-steps in naval platforms has a bad track record.
The Brits might want to consider having two robust carrier air wings, that they deploy on U.S. carriers if required, but normally operate as land-based units (like USMC fixed wing). Operational training could be had by adding single squadrons to U.S. deployments. U.S. CVNs used to have air wings of 80+ aircraft not so long ago, but are now down to ~60 aircraft. Adding another squadron would simply put the deck load back up to what it was designed for, so the capacity is there.
If the Brits are going to bet on never facing a real adversary, then the cost of the QEs is way too high. A new super tanker is under $200 million and reconfiguring the design to a VTOL platform with below deck hangers shouldn’t more than double the cost. A $500 million converted tanker would be 30% the cost of a QE class CV, and offer more flight deck and hangar space.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.