Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Jdam]

No ASRAAM?

Maybe they were just doing pilot training, getting used to landing and taking off from the carrier and external stores will come later? I remember external weapons last time the F-35s were on the carrier.

[Roders96]

I have said a number of time that the UK should have no fewer than 90 F-35b allowing for 2 FAA sqn's of 16 jets and 3 RAF sqn's of 12 jets plus a OCU and a TEU. meaning both carriers would have a fixed airwing of 16 jets with with RAF or Allied jets joining the ships as needed

Or, at least say 45-48 F-35Bs just for the FAA, where they might have say 30sh of them operational in 3-4 smaller squadrons of 8 or 10 aircrafts. So, two such small squadrons for operational carrier, one for non-operational/amphibious carrier and one for reserve/training- ready to reinforce operational carrier in case of need.
And what will the RAF do with their 45-48 F-35, who cares? You can only count on them during a major national emergency like Falklands, if even that. Better to leave them alone and be free of their malicious meddling into naval air. As somebody said: Russians are the opposition. RAF is the enemy.

In the medium term (10 - 15 years) is it not realistic to expect ucavs to flesh out the carrier air wing? This could be more cost effective and also more lethal, parking the moral dilemma. Some of the literature I have seen w/ Valkyrie (X-58) discusses sub 10m USD per unit and a ratio of 1:3, manned : ucav on operations.

This could very quickly turn 2 x 12 F35 squadrons into 2 x 12 (+ 2 x 36), totalling 96 airframes. This could be possible with the QEs assuming the UCAV takes up roughly 70% of the space of an F35. However, considering the long term national demographic dilemma (we're ageing and therefore becoming less productive per head) and funding constraints it is more realistic to talk along the lines of 2 x 8 F35 (+ 2 x 24) totalling 64 airframes. With a big dollop of salt, could this be what has informed the current arrangements for 2 x 8 F35b embarked? Might it be that any indicated willingness to move to 2 x 12 in the medium term could be to cover the period until ucavs develop only?

Pilot and maintenance crew training pipelines are extremely expensive, it is understandable that the forces don't want to sink money into building them up for only 10 years of use.

Would welcome everyone's thoughts, obviously alot of 'coulds'.

[Caribbean]

Some of the literature I have seen w/ Valkyrie (X-58) discusses sub 10m USD per uni

The Australian "Loyal Wingman" project stated a target cost of $2m/unit recently. Even if it costs 2 or 3 times that, they will be very interesting (and cheap).

[Roders96]

Some of the literature I have seen w/ Valkyrie (X-58) discusses sub 10m USD per uni

The Australian "Loyal Wingman" project stated a target cost of $2m/unit recently. Even if it costs 2 or 3 times that, they will be very interesting (and cheap).

Absolutely, wouldn't be surprised if they become quite specialised, a Taranis like variant for strike missions, something more manoeuvrable for automated CAP. Could crowsnest be delivered from such a platform?

The most important thing is that when something's cheap it can be bought in numbers. When it's bought in numbers it can support a competitive market.

[Jake1992]

Some of the literature I have seen w/ Valkyrie (X-58) discusses sub 10m USD per uni

The Australian "Loyal Wingman" project stated a target cost of $2m/unit recently. Even if it costs 2 or 3 times that, they will be very interesting (and cheap).

Absolutely, wouldn't be surprised if they become quite specialised, a Taranis like variant for strike missions, something more manoeuvrable for automated CAP. Could crowsnest be delivered from such a platform?

The most important thing is that when something's cheap it can be bought in numbers. When it's bought in numbers it can support a competitive market.

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.

[Caribbean]

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.

Indeed, but having recently seen video of the Chinese, I think it was, operating what looked like fairly conventional aircraft off a ski-jump equipped carrier, with arrestor gear for the landing, it may not be entirely fanciful at some point in the future, particularly for smaller and lighter aircraft. However, the first UAVs on our carriers will almost inevitably be rotary.

[Ron5]

If and when the drones get as capable as a manned fighter, they will cost the same or more

IOW no such thing as a free lunch.

[Jake1992]

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.

Indeed, but having recently seen video of the Chinese, I think it was, operating what looked like fairly conventional aircraft off a ski-jump equipped carrier, with arrestor gear for the landing, it may not be entirely fanciful at some point in the future, particularly for smaller and lighter aircraft. However, the first UAVs on our carriers will almost inevitably be rotary.

But the whole discussion above is about using UAVs that can supplement the F35s over the next 10 odd years to make up for the short fall in numbers, now unless any that are out there right now are STOVL capable then it’s a mute point. Be able to land on a Chinese carrier is very different as we don’t have arrestor gear on the QEs.

I best I think we could hope for short to mid term is the V-247, it’s based on tilt rotor set up and is to come in many variants from Attack ( reaper style ) to AEW to Electronic warfare with an aim of a £25m odd price take.

[SW1]

Some of the literature I have seen w/ Valkyrie (X-58) discusses sub 10m USD per uni

The Australian "Loyal Wingman" project stated a target cost of $2m/unit recently. Even if it costs 2 or 3 times that, they will be very interesting (and cheap).

Absolutely, wouldn't be surprised if they become quite specialised, a Taranis like variant for strike missions, something more manoeuvrable for automated CAP. Could crowsnest be delivered from such a platform?

The most important thing is that when something's cheap it can be bought in numbers. When it's bought in numbers it can support a competitive market.

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.

Most of the kratos uavs could be used form a carrier.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.
- not quite. There are scenarios where a good chunk of the "Stealth Force" could be used without them taking off our carriers



Most of the kratos uavs could be used form a carrier.

As for the latter, separate quote, I don't have the details and would be intrigued

[Ron5]

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.
- not quite. There are scenarios where a good chunk of the "Stealth Force" could be used without them taking off our carriers



Most of the kratos uavs could be used form a carrier.

As for the latter, separate quote, I don't have the details and would be intrigued

Most Kratos that I am familiar with, take off via a rocket assisted ramp and land via parachute i.e. do not need a runway. I imagine he thinks that makes them compatible with carriers (eyes roll).

[Roders96]

But the whole discussion above is about using UAVs that can supplement the F35s over the next 10 odd years to make up for the short fall in numbers, now unless any that are out there right now are STOVL capable then it’s a mute point. Be able to land on a Chinese carrier is very different as we don’t have arrestor gear on the QEs.

In the medium term (10 - 15 years) is it not realistic to expect ucavs to flesh out the carrier air wing?

Apologies ladies and gents, very much meant this to mean in 10 years time. I.e the 1:3 ratio coming in early 2030s!

If and when the drones get as capable as a manned fighter, they will cost the same or more

IOW no such thing as a free lunch.

Any economist knows that the goods themselves and never decide their price alone. The price of goods is always decided by the balance of market forces, i.e the bargaining power of the firms and consumers. The only reason F22 and F35 are so expensive is because Lockheed Martin have had a defacto monopoly on US novel fighter production for the past 30 years. Similar reasons for the Eurofighter.

Possibly the reason Valkyrie has grabbed the headlines and possibly engineered this manned vs unmanned sparring match is because Kratos is the new entry, happy to sacrifice inflated profits for market share. Happy to compete.

Given that the drone won't be hamstrung supporting a human it'll be lighter that's for sure. Some people call it a free lunch, others call it progress?

[Scimitar54]

You think that Boeing are not still making Naval Aircraft?

[Roders96]

Emphasis on novel

[Scimitar54]

Thought it was a typo Naval ........ Novel!

[Roders96]

Haha would not surprise

[SW1]

Before we get carried away are any UAVs that could supplement the F35s STOVL capable ? If not then the discussion is mute.
- not quite. There are scenarios where a good chunk of the "Stealth Force" could be used without them taking off our carriers



Most of the kratos uavs could be used form a carrier.

As for the latter, separate quote, I don't have the details and would be intrigued

“The Kratos Mako is based on the Kratos-made BQM-167A aerial target and can also be ship-launched, offering instant aerial power to any naval vessel. Kratos cites "payload versatility" as one of the Mako's key features, so it might possibly to be "the ultimate wingman" for the Navy too”

[Scimitar54]

How about an Unmanned F35B?

[PhillyJ]

Sorry for the personal update, but my lad has just had his time on PWLS extended for another 2 years...great news for him and scary that he has been on for 2 already. Time flies!

[Scimitar54]

If he was on the Starboard side (in procedure Alpha) on entering Pompey for the first time last November, then we probably exchanged “Waves” in front of the “Spice Inn”.

[PhillyJ]

If he was on the Starboard side (in procedure Alpha) on entering Pompey for the first time last November, then we probably exchanged “Waves” in front of the “Spice Inn”.

He was in position P8, so manning the aft GPMG...or tail end Charlie for any RAF types on here!

[SKB]

“Spice Inn”.

Spice Island Inn *

The Portsmouth Point area is on a narrow spit known locally as Spice Island

[Timmymagic]

I best I think we could hope for short to mid term is the V-247, it’s based on tilt rotor set up and is to come in many variants from Attack ( reaper style ) to AEW to Electronic warfare with an aim of a £25m odd price take.

I'm afraid the V-247 is probably dead now. Unless the USMC keeps it in for the MALE requirement. The TERN tailsitter appears to be dead as well..

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 36.article

[donald_of_tokyo]

Any economist knows that the goods themselves and never decide their price alone. The price of goods is always decided by the balance of market forces, i.e the bargaining power of the firms and consumers. The only reason F22 and F35 are so expensive is because Lockheed Martin have had a defacto monopoly on US novel fighter production for the past 30 years. Similar reasons for the Eurofighter.

I only partly agree here.

Modern fighter requirement is so complex and its development needs very high level of technology and project management = huge resource, so that "not many" industry can bid for it any more. Simply, they cannot do it.

To develop a rival of F35, you cannot divide its development cost into two and invest each of them in to two different company (e.g. LM and Boeing), and say "compete". It does not work.

What you need to do is to DOUBLE the development cost = invest twice as much of now, and then say "compete". In this case, the production cost may see strong competence and might be slightly cheaper than now. But, if you stop supporting the loser (= not buying the more expensive fighter), the company will simply bankrupt and go away. In the next run, you have only 1 industry to answer to your call for bidding.

This is what is happening in the fighter world.

Possibly the reason Valkyrie has grabbed the headlines and possibly engineered this manned vs unmanned sparring match is because Kratos is the new entry, happy to sacrifice inflated profits for market share. Happy to compete.

Given that the drone won't be hamstrung supporting a human it'll be lighter that's for sure. Some people call it a free lunch, others call it progress?

I understand, there are several drone producers because these drones are currently simple and cheap. Do not needing Billions of money to develop these drones. If these drones became as capable as a fighter, it will surely be as expensive as a fighter, and there will be only one or two industry which can answer to the call for bidding, as what happened to fighter.

This trend just follows the economists view. Finally, you will have one or two or three huge players in the field, and all the other will go out. This is because, bigger is always "stronger" (as bigger firm can absorb smaller firms). This is exactly what you see in PC, cellular phones, passenger airplanes, search engine service (google), shopping, and net-shopping. Everywhere you see. Fighter world is not special.

[Timmymagic]

The Australian "Loyal Wingman" project stated a target cost of $2m/unit recently. Even if it costs 2 or 3 times that, they will be very interesting (and cheap).

If they've said a target cost of $2m (presumably $AUS so about £1.1m) then someone really needs to introduce them to jet engines and how much they cost...