That is not the only reason though - it was always a strategy to have a rotation policy so that one carrier is always going through refit while the other is on patrol.
That (and for cost management and number of available pilots) is why they only ordered enough to support one carrier
Aircraft carriers are so crazy and strike groups even more so. I really wonder how drones hypersonic missiles will change the viability of them though.
Hypersonic missiles are definitely a problem but drones not so
They only work on russia thanks to the state of the russian surface navy the moskva couldn't even use its radio and radar at the same time and had 1 single pd gun working
I wouldn’t write drones off so easily, the technology has improved massively since the Ukraine war started, the things they are doing with them now, nobody thought of 5 years ago. Imagine a carrier being swarmed by hundreds of them, could it deal with them? Who knows.
Eh while technically true, and a lot better from a budgetary perspective, there are quite a few drawbacks. Those F-35Bs, while capable, are less able to take larger munitions and likely will be limited in overall payload, especially in non-stealth Beast mode. These carriers also can only support the F35B and the Harrier when it comes to fixed-wings. This means jobs like EW, AWACs, and cargo have to be done by helicopters, which are much slower and have less range, thus reducing their overall ability again. Of course, the sensors and systems on the F35B can somewhat mitigate this, it is nothing compared to having a full-blown aerial radar like on the Hawkeye or having dedicated EW aircraft like the Growlers. And finally, this decision does limit future prospects for these carriers. Navalizing fighters for CATOBAR is trivial compared to making a VTOL craft. The QE II class will be stuck on F-35Bs for a very long time, likely long after all other variants have been replaced. It’s a similar situation that happened with the Harriers and the carriers based around them.
The F-35Bs can take off with a full payload with a full fuel tank from the carriers so payload isn’t an issue. The Royal Navy demonstrated this by fitting out their F-35Bs with a fuck tonne of heavy American munitions and launching their jet from the carrier without an issue.
Furthermore, the UK doesn’t actually own any heavy air-launched payloads anyways and doesn’t plan on purchasing any.
Being stuck with rotary AEW is a drawback but from the Royal Navy’s perspective, they think drone AEW is the way forward and that’s a much more realistic prospect for the carriers in the future. There’s even been offers from General Dynamics to fit out the carriers with a bunch of AEW MQ-9Bs. These drone AEW may have less powerful radars than something like an E-2D but their loiter time would be measured in days rather than a few hours and a carrier can likely have a lot more than just 5 of them embarked.
Armchair admiral I may be, but is anything I am saying wrong? Is anything I am saying invalid? I’m not saying that VSTOL carriers are entirely bad, but rather trying to point out that there multiple drawbacks OOP hadn’t mentioned. If there is something I’m missing, please tell me.
The decision to not outfit them with catapults seems like the pinnacle of penny wise pound foolish decision making.
It's such a massive reduction in capabilities. It's restricted to basically just F-35Bs and helicopters. No airborne warning and control aircraft, no refueling aircraft, no electronic warfare, or cargo aircraft, no long-range antisubmarine patrol aircraft. It's a decision to permanently restrict yourself to what can be done by helicopters or the F-35B.
Building an aircraft carrier that big and not putting a catapult on it seems like the kind of mealy minded bureaucratic idiocy that I'm accustomed to from the British government. The US obviously doesn't agree with them, neither does France or China or India, all of whom either operate or are building catobar aircraft carriers.
The decision to not outfit them with catapults seems like the pinnacle of penny wise pound foolish decision making.
No, it really wasn't.
It's such a massive reduction in capabilities. It's restricted to basically just F-35Bs and helicopters. No airborne warning and control aircraft, no refueling aircraft, no electronic warfare, or cargo aircraft, no long-range antisubmarine patrol aircraft.
Restricted to the second most capable carrier-borne aircraft in the world (behind the F-35C).
It has Merlin Crowsnest for AEW
It has Merlin MK4 for COD/MITL
It has Merlin HM2 for ASW
A USN carrier doesn't have long-range anti-submarine patrol aircraft.
FS Charles de Gaulle doesn't have EW, or COD, or ASW ...
Building an aircraft carrier that big and not putting a catapult on it seems like the kind of mealy minded bureaucratic idiocy that I'm accustomed to from the British government.
No, it really doesn't. It was an incredibly sensible decision based on all the factors.
The US obviously doesn't agree with them, neither does France or China or India, all of whom either operate or are building catobar aircraft carriers.
France only has one aircraft carrier, and India isn't building a CATOBAR carrier.
Restricted to the second most capable carrier-borne aircraft in the world (behind the F-35C).
J-35 (doesn't have to jettison its payload to land, and isn't stuck with the AMRAAM), J-15T (BVR Missile truck, kinematically superior), J-15DT (most modern carrier based EW fighter in the world).
It has Merlin Crowsnest for AEW
KJ-600. Helicopters for AEW are infinitely inferior to fixed wing.
France only has one aircraft carrier, and India isn't building a CATOBAR carrier.
Funny that you purposefully left out China. The QE class is restricted compared to CATOBAR carriers, this is a fact, and the Fujian cemented it. You'll always pick the CDG as a comparison because it's 20 years older, and France doesn't operate any 5th gens, China does though. The fact is the UK is cash strapped, and is stripping everything it can to maintain the RN, and RAF, and is barely managing to do that. Imagine if the BAOR was still around? What a travesty.
J-35 (doesn't have to jettison its payload to land, and isn't stuck with the AMRAAM),
Has the J-35 entered operational service yet?
KJ-600. Helicopters for AEW are infinitely inferior to fixed wing.
Absolutely, but QEC still has AEW
Funny that you purposefully left out China.
Because what you said was true about China, they are building more CATOBAR carriers. There was no further need to comment
The QE class is restricted compared to CATOBAR carriers, this is a fact, and the Fujian cemented it.
Not necessarily.
CdG isn't as capable and it is CATOBAR.
You'll always pick the CDG as a comparison because it's 20 years older, and France doesn't operate any 5th gens
And it is a CATOBAR. Hence blanket statements don't always work.
China does though.
Cool, the very fact you're comparing the UK to China illustrates my point quite nicely.
The fact is the UK is cash strapped, and is stripping everything it can to maintain the RN, and RAF, and is barely managing to do that. Imagine if the BAOR was still around? What a travesty.
Yes, it's deployed on the Fujian, there's less than 100 built as far as we're aware, but it's definitely in service.
Absolutely, but QEC still has AEW
It's a pretty big capability gap though.
CdG isn't as capable and it is CATOBAR.
CdG is also half the weight of the QE class (and 20 years older), so I guess you're correct to say that, what I meant is that it's outclassed by CATOBAR carriers of similar displacement.
And it is a CATOBAR. Hence blanket statements don't always work.
That's fair, CdG is a uniquely light CATOBAR carrier for the time it was built (It's lighter than the CATOBAR Type 076).
Cool, the very fact you're comparing the UK to China illustrates my point quite nicely.
You're point being that skijump carriers aren't inferior to CATOBAR carriers or what? China clearly doesn't think so considering it's only building CATOBAR carriers from now on, and the Liaoning, and Shandong were built because they were completed designs China could work from to establish an air wing.
Cool.
Yeah it is cool that the UK is budget restricted (I'm saying this as a Brit too btw), and it's very nice that the UK is managing two carriers on its shoestring budget, but it's still entirely fair to say that the QE class is a result of said shoestring budget, and that every other modern CATOBAR besides the CdG is superior in every way. The F-35B is also probably more limited to than the J-35 too since it has to jump off a ramp, but that's another story.
Yes, it's deployed on the Fujian, there's less than 100 built as far as we're aware, but it's definitely in service.
I mean, Fujian has only just been commissioned, let alone been on an operational deployment.
It's a pretty big capability gap though.
Still exists however.
CdG is also half the weight of the QE class (and 20 years older), so I guess you're correct to say that, what I meant is that it's outclassed by CATOBAR carriers of similar displacement.
That I would agree with.
You're point being that skijump carriers aren't inferior to CATOBAR carriers or what? China clearly doesn't think so considering it's only building CATOBAR carriers from now on, and the Liaoning, and Shandong were built because they were completed designs China could work from to establish an air wing.
No, my point is that, when it comes to a Carrier Strike capability, you're comparing the UK and China as peers/near peer.
There is no other military area where this would be the case, and the only other nation you'd compare to China would be the US
You wouldn't compare Italy, Spain, France etc. You could potentially compare India, but doubtful.
This is how impressive the RN's Carrier Strike capability is, despite all the issues.
I mean, Fujian has only just been commissioned, let alone been on an operational deployment.
I agree, but the J-35s are still in service.
No, my point is that, when it comes to a Carrier Strike capability, you're comparing the UK and China as peers/near peer.
I'm not calling them near peer, I'm just using Fujian as an example of a superior carrier.
There is no other military area where this would be the case, and the only other nation you'd compare to China would be the US
Obviously, since so few countries even operate carriers, but the UK isn't remotely in the same league, and it's sacrificed every other aspect of its armed forces to get to this point.
You wouldn't compare Italy, Spain, France etc. You could potentially compare India, but doubtful.
France is in a similar position to Britain in that it optimised its military entirely around one thing, (neo-african colonies) to the detriment of the rest of its capabilities, Italy, and Spain haven't been great powers for a very long time so they don't deserve the comparison. India is a rising regional power but it's absolutely mired in corruption that will never let it reach its potential without change. So who's left? The USA, who has been the hegemony since the late 80s, China who is the rising super power, and the UK, who sacrifices everything else militarily to maintain two CSGs.
Yes it's impressive that the RN is able to maintain two CSGs, but it's really all Britain has. Two weaker CSGs to slot in with the Americans in whatever war they choose to fight, to defend the Falklands (as long as Argentina stays an irrelevant shithole), or to perform police actions to the detriment of everyone else.
the JMSDF is a navy I could compare the RN to, they have two carriers that are definitely worse than the QE Class, but their other surface combatant fleet is significantly larger. It is true that the RN has the RFA which is an impressive logistics force, but Japan is able to maintain two much smaller carriers, but more surface combatants, and a less overall neglected military.
I'm not calling them near peer, I'm just using Fujian as an example of a superior carrier.
Would you compare Italy's Carrier Strike capability to that of China?
Obviously, since so few countries even operate carriers, but the UK isn't remotely in the same league, and it's sacrificed every other aspect of its armed forces to get to this point.
No, it hasn't
Yes it's impressive that the RN is able to maintain two CSGs, but it's really all Britain has. Two weaker CSGs to slot in with the Americans in whatever war they choose to fight, to defend the Falklands (as long as Argentina stays an irrelevant shithole), or to perform police actions to the detriment of everyone else.
Wrong.
And the very fact you've said that gives some inclination as to your real viewpoint.
Would you compare Italy's Carrier Strike capability to that of China?
I literally went on to say that Italy, and Spain don't deserve the comparison, and aren't in the same league.
No, it hasn't
Really? That's a strange thing to say. The British army is actively shrinking, and is lagging behind to the point that it's been almost entirely re-arranged around 16 Air Assault Brigade, our historic 1st Armoured Division was transitioned to light infantry. The RAF is actively losing Typhoons too, although it's not neglected like the Army. We're no where near as complete as a fighting force as we were in the 90s.
Wrong.
How? If you politically disagree that's fine, but it's true that it's all the UK has.
Does the UK operate any aircraft that can use catapults? Can it afford to procure them? We can't even afford to procure enough F35bs. The F35b with STOVL carries a much lower training and certification burden compared to cats and traps. Can the UK afford a goshawk equivalent? It means Non-maritime F35b squadrons can be quickly rerolled to work from carriers.
While the F35b is not as capable as a F35A/C it is still much more capable than anything it likely to go up against and miles ahead of the Harrier in everyway.
The RN is completely unable to run something akin to an American USN carrier group and should not be trying to. The USN obviously sees some utility in the F35b because they also bought it
Even more when you realize they are too large (about 3m too wide at waterline) to dry dock in their home port and Prince of Wales had to make a 2 month round trip to Scotland to fix its propeller.
Maybe, I would recommend reading the post Falkland MOD reports on the conflict and there findings relating to the carriers.
one point of interest from the reports was that the weather conditions fought during the Falkland would have frequently rendered catapult launch carriers unable to launch and recover aircraft.
The Queen Elizabeth Class were designed and built to be STOVL and use the F-35B.
During 2010-2012, the decision was taken to convert one to CATOBAR and use the F-35C but this was (sensibly) abandoned when further work was carried out that would make it extremely expensive.
Eh I don’t know about the sensibility of the decision. There is a pretty significant capability gap between CATOBAR and non-CATOBAR carriers. I understand the financial situation for the UK military is not the best, but IMO they should have tried at least one CATOBAR and one non-CATOBAR.
It has been sometime since I looked it up in detail, but if I remember correctly, the gist back then was essentially that conversation of just one carrier to CATOBAR would increase the cost by around 2 billion pounds or more, when both carriers combined were sitting at a cost of roughly 6 billion back then. So the cost for one ship would go from roughly 3 billion to 5 billion. And that was before the problems with the EMAILS catapults emerged, which caused problems for the US for years and made them more expensive that originally planned while being plagued with reliability problems. So this likely would have resulted in Prince of Wales either not getting completed at all (which would have also resulted in much of its cost being paid anyway as compensation to the shipyard and manufacturers for breaking the treaty), or it would have been sold on the stocks.
So this would likely have resulted in the UK having only one carrier in the end.
Now that discussion is another whole topic, if one excellent carrier is preferable over 2 carriers that are a bit less capable but still good, and I don't think that question has a right or wrong answer (for example the French seem to prefer one carrier that's somewhat better).
Also the cost difference in maintaining an STVOL Vs CATOBAR fleet often ignores the much higher training hours and therefore costs of the latter.
Plus the QEs are designed for quite small crew requirements. Maintaining and operating cats and traps is manpower intensive too
The Royal Navy is of the belief that ski ramps offer a greater operating window in the rough south Atlantic seas and chose the initial design because of that. At the time these carriers were being designed Argentina was sabre rattling again about the Falklands. Catobar may be the better system overall but the RN think it would weaken the UK's capability of defending the Falklands.
F-35Cs actually are not yet certified to use the new AAG and EMALS yet. Not a single F-35Cs has ever landed or taken off from the USS Gerald R. Ford so if the UK went this route their carriers would literally be completely empty of jets.
The only fifth-generation aircraft that has been launched off and landed on a catapult system that uses electromagnetic technology is the J-35.
Credit to UK Carrier Strike Group
This is the largest embarkation of 5th gen aircraft on any aircraft carrier in the world.
Massive achievement.
Is not also the only aircraft carrier the uk has?
No, the UK has two aircraft carriers.
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Prince of Wales
Thanks, did not know that.
But we only have enough aircraft for one to be active and have a full air wing, at any one time
I think we have 36, or so, f35b total?
That is not the only reason though - it was always a strategy to have a rotation policy so that one carrier is always going through refit while the other is on patrol.
That (and for cost management and number of available pilots) is why they only ordered enough to support one carrier
Even that is optimistic.
3 is generally the optimal number for continuous presence.
One on duty.
One on overhaul and refit,
One just returned and or working up/training .
Yeah which is why the US has at least 9 (currently 11) - 3 for each region they want to be active in.
I always thought the usa had a excessive amount but that honestly makes sense tbh
Their military doctrine calls for the ability to fight two wars at once.
Often one is on "extended readiness" Which can end up meaning it just gets robbed for parts for the the one that's on duty.
Aircraft carriers are so crazy and strike groups even more so. I really wonder how drones hypersonic missiles will change the viability of them though.
Hypersonic missiles are definitely a problem but drones not so
They only work on russia thanks to the state of the russian surface navy the moskva couldn't even use its radio and radar at the same time and had 1 single pd gun working
I wouldn’t write drones off so easily, the technology has improved massively since the Ukraine war started, the things they are doing with them now, nobody thought of 5 years ago. Imagine a carrier being swarmed by hundreds of them, could it deal with them? Who knows.
what if you were able to produce, maintain, and operate a swarm of drones from a carrier? (I have no idea what I'm talking about btw)
Great, now off to the black sea with it
That looks expensive.
I feel like this carrier is the worst of both worlds. Very large and expensive, yet only suitable for STOVL aircraft.
It's really not.
Larger size = more flexibility
Not very expensive in comparison
Operates the second most advanced carrier-capable aircraft in the word (behind the F-35C)
Eh while technically true, and a lot better from a budgetary perspective, there are quite a few drawbacks. Those F-35Bs, while capable, are less able to take larger munitions and likely will be limited in overall payload, especially in non-stealth Beast mode. These carriers also can only support the F35B and the Harrier when it comes to fixed-wings. This means jobs like EW, AWACs, and cargo have to be done by helicopters, which are much slower and have less range, thus reducing their overall ability again. Of course, the sensors and systems on the F35B can somewhat mitigate this, it is nothing compared to having a full-blown aerial radar like on the Hawkeye or having dedicated EW aircraft like the Growlers. And finally, this decision does limit future prospects for these carriers. Navalizing fighters for CATOBAR is trivial compared to making a VTOL craft. The QE II class will be stuck on F-35Bs for a very long time, likely long after all other variants have been replaced. It’s a similar situation that happened with the Harriers and the carriers based around them.
The F-35Bs can take off with a full payload with a full fuel tank from the carriers so payload isn’t an issue. The Royal Navy demonstrated this by fitting out their F-35Bs with a fuck tonne of heavy American munitions and launching their jet from the carrier without an issue.
Furthermore, the UK doesn’t actually own any heavy air-launched payloads anyways and doesn’t plan on purchasing any.
Being stuck with rotary AEW is a drawback but from the Royal Navy’s perspective, they think drone AEW is the way forward and that’s a much more realistic prospect for the carriers in the future. There’s even been offers from General Dynamics to fit out the carriers with a bunch of AEW MQ-9Bs. These drone AEW may have less powerful radars than something like an E-2D but their loiter time would be measured in days rather than a few hours and a carrier can likely have a lot more than just 5 of them embarked.
Cant wait for a vtol ewac
[removed]
Armchair admiral I may be, but is anything I am saying wrong? Is anything I am saying invalid? I’m not saying that VSTOL carriers are entirely bad, but rather trying to point out that there multiple drawbacks OOP hadn’t mentioned. If there is something I’m missing, please tell me.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted.
The decision to not outfit them with catapults seems like the pinnacle of penny wise pound foolish decision making.
It's such a massive reduction in capabilities. It's restricted to basically just F-35Bs and helicopters. No airborne warning and control aircraft, no refueling aircraft, no electronic warfare, or cargo aircraft, no long-range antisubmarine patrol aircraft. It's a decision to permanently restrict yourself to what can be done by helicopters or the F-35B.
Building an aircraft carrier that big and not putting a catapult on it seems like the kind of mealy minded bureaucratic idiocy that I'm accustomed to from the British government. The US obviously doesn't agree with them, neither does France or China or India, all of whom either operate or are building catobar aircraft carriers.
No, it really wasn't.
Restricted to the second most capable carrier-borne aircraft in the world (behind the F-35C).
It has Merlin Crowsnest for AEW
It has Merlin MK4 for COD/MITL
It has Merlin HM2 for ASW
A USN carrier doesn't have long-range anti-submarine patrol aircraft.
FS Charles de Gaulle doesn't have EW, or COD, or ASW ...
No, it really doesn't. It was an incredibly sensible decision based on all the factors.
France only has one aircraft carrier, and India isn't building a CATOBAR carrier.
J-35 (doesn't have to jettison its payload to land, and isn't stuck with the AMRAAM), J-15T (BVR Missile truck, kinematically superior), J-15DT (most modern carrier based EW fighter in the world).
KJ-600. Helicopters for AEW are infinitely inferior to fixed wing.
Funny that you purposefully left out China. The QE class is restricted compared to CATOBAR carriers, this is a fact, and the Fujian cemented it. You'll always pick the CDG as a comparison because it's 20 years older, and France doesn't operate any 5th gens, China does though. The fact is the UK is cash strapped, and is stripping everything it can to maintain the RN, and RAF, and is barely managing to do that. Imagine if the BAOR was still around? What a travesty.
Has the J-35 entered operational service yet?
Absolutely, but QEC still has AEW
Because what you said was true about China, they are building more CATOBAR carriers. There was no further need to comment
Not necessarily.
CdG isn't as capable and it is CATOBAR.
And it is a CATOBAR. Hence blanket statements don't always work.
Cool, the very fact you're comparing the UK to China illustrates my point quite nicely.
Cool.
Yes, it's deployed on the Fujian, there's less than 100 built as far as we're aware, but it's definitely in service.
It's a pretty big capability gap though.
CdG is also half the weight of the QE class (and 20 years older), so I guess you're correct to say that, what I meant is that it's outclassed by CATOBAR carriers of similar displacement.
That's fair, CdG is a uniquely light CATOBAR carrier for the time it was built (It's lighter than the CATOBAR Type 076).
You're point being that skijump carriers aren't inferior to CATOBAR carriers or what? China clearly doesn't think so considering it's only building CATOBAR carriers from now on, and the Liaoning, and Shandong were built because they were completed designs China could work from to establish an air wing.
Yeah it is cool that the UK is budget restricted (I'm saying this as a Brit too btw), and it's very nice that the UK is managing two carriers on its shoestring budget, but it's still entirely fair to say that the QE class is a result of said shoestring budget, and that every other modern CATOBAR besides the CdG is superior in every way. The F-35B is also probably more limited to than the J-35 too since it has to jump off a ramp, but that's another story.
I mean, Fujian has only just been commissioned, let alone been on an operational deployment.
Still exists however.
That I would agree with.
No, my point is that, when it comes to a Carrier Strike capability, you're comparing the UK and China as peers/near peer.
There is no other military area where this would be the case, and the only other nation you'd compare to China would be the US
You wouldn't compare Italy, Spain, France etc. You could potentially compare India, but doubtful.
This is how impressive the RN's Carrier Strike capability is, despite all the issues.
I agree, but the J-35s are still in service.
I'm not calling them near peer, I'm just using Fujian as an example of a superior carrier.
Obviously, since so few countries even operate carriers, but the UK isn't remotely in the same league, and it's sacrificed every other aspect of its armed forces to get to this point.
France is in a similar position to Britain in that it optimised its military entirely around one thing, (neo-african colonies) to the detriment of the rest of its capabilities, Italy, and Spain haven't been great powers for a very long time so they don't deserve the comparison. India is a rising regional power but it's absolutely mired in corruption that will never let it reach its potential without change. So who's left? The USA, who has been the hegemony since the late 80s, China who is the rising super power, and the UK, who sacrifices everything else militarily to maintain two CSGs.
Yes it's impressive that the RN is able to maintain two CSGs, but it's really all Britain has. Two weaker CSGs to slot in with the Americans in whatever war they choose to fight, to defend the Falklands (as long as Argentina stays an irrelevant shithole), or to perform police actions to the detriment of everyone else.
the JMSDF is a navy I could compare the RN to, they have two carriers that are definitely worse than the QE Class, but their other surface combatant fleet is significantly larger. It is true that the RN has the RFA which is an impressive logistics force, but Japan is able to maintain two much smaller carriers, but more surface combatants, and a less overall neglected military.
Would you compare Italy's Carrier Strike capability to that of China?
No, it hasn't
Wrong.
And the very fact you've said that gives some inclination as to your real viewpoint.
I literally went on to say that Italy, and Spain don't deserve the comparison, and aren't in the same league.
Really? That's a strange thing to say. The British army is actively shrinking, and is lagging behind to the point that it's been almost entirely re-arranged around 16 Air Assault Brigade, our historic 1st Armoured Division was transitioned to light infantry. The RAF is actively losing Typhoons too, although it's not neglected like the Army. We're no where near as complete as a fighting force as we were in the 90s.
How? If you politically disagree that's fine, but it's true that it's all the UK has.
The Fujian is a much larger carrier.
It's of a similar displacement, and it's not ridiculously larger.
Does the UK operate any aircraft that can use catapults? Can it afford to procure them? We can't even afford to procure enough F35bs. The F35b with STOVL carries a much lower training and certification burden compared to cats and traps. Can the UK afford a goshawk equivalent? It means Non-maritime F35b squadrons can be quickly rerolled to work from carriers.
While the F35b is not as capable as a F35A/C it is still much more capable than anything it likely to go up against and miles ahead of the Harrier in everyway.
The RN is completely unable to run something akin to an American USN carrier group and should not be trying to. The USN obviously sees some utility in the F35b because they also bought it
>I don't know why you're getting downvoted.
People who can't separate criticism from appreciation.
Even more when you realize they are too large (about 3m too wide at waterline) to dry dock in their home port and Prince of Wales had to make a 2 month round trip to Scotland to fix its propeller.
Genius.
Maybe. But there are two of them.
Maybe, I would recommend reading the post Falkland MOD reports on the conflict and there findings relating to the carriers.
one point of interest from the reports was that the weather conditions fought during the Falkland would have frequently rendered catapult launch carriers unable to launch and recover aircraft.
Interesting that they chose the “B”
It’s more complex then the “C”
Isn’t the “C” made for carriers, while the “B” is vertical take off?
The Queen Elizabeth Class were designed and built to be STOVL and use the F-35B.
During 2010-2012, the decision was taken to convert one to CATOBAR and use the F-35C but this was (sensibly) abandoned when further work was carried out that would make it extremely expensive.
[deleted]
Yes, it really was
Eh I don’t know about the sensibility of the decision. There is a pretty significant capability gap between CATOBAR and non-CATOBAR carriers. I understand the financial situation for the UK military is not the best, but IMO they should have tried at least one CATOBAR and one non-CATOBAR.
It has been sometime since I looked it up in detail, but if I remember correctly, the gist back then was essentially that conversation of just one carrier to CATOBAR would increase the cost by around 2 billion pounds or more, when both carriers combined were sitting at a cost of roughly 6 billion back then. So the cost for one ship would go from roughly 3 billion to 5 billion. And that was before the problems with the EMAILS catapults emerged, which caused problems for the US for years and made them more expensive that originally planned while being plagued with reliability problems. So this likely would have resulted in Prince of Wales either not getting completed at all (which would have also resulted in much of its cost being paid anyway as compensation to the shipyard and manufacturers for breaking the treaty), or it would have been sold on the stocks.
So this would likely have resulted in the UK having only one carrier in the end.
Now that discussion is another whole topic, if one excellent carrier is preferable over 2 carriers that are a bit less capable but still good, and I don't think that question has a right or wrong answer (for example the French seem to prefer one carrier that's somewhat better).
Also the cost difference in maintaining an STVOL Vs CATOBAR fleet often ignores the much higher training hours and therefore costs of the latter. Plus the QEs are designed for quite small crew requirements. Maintaining and operating cats and traps is manpower intensive too
>So this would likely have resulted in the UK having only one carrier in the end.
A STOVL carrier and a CATOBAR carrier have *vastly* different capabilities.
"Carrier" is a gross oversimplification along the lines of "submarine" to encompass both boomers and fast attack subs.
Yawn
How insightful of you.
You're the one making ridiculous statements
yawn
Exactly.
The Royal Navy is of the belief that ski ramps offer a greater operating window in the rough south Atlantic seas and chose the initial design because of that. At the time these carriers were being designed Argentina was sabre rattling again about the Falklands. Catobar may be the better system overall but the RN think it would weaken the UK's capability of defending the Falklands.
That's not why ski jumps/STOVL was chosen.
It's not the only reason but it was part of the conversation.
Find me any official documentation that states that as one of the reasons as to why CVF/QEC was STOVL.
They are getting a catobar system, but it's only rated for large drones
No, we're not.
F-35Cs actually are not yet certified to use the new AAG and EMALS yet. Not a single F-35Cs has ever landed or taken off from the USS Gerald R. Ford so if the UK went this route their carriers would literally be completely empty of jets.
The only fifth-generation aircraft that has been launched off and landed on a catapult system that uses electromagnetic technology is the J-35.
Apparently five of those are Italian. Good of them to help the Royal Navy out with its photo...
Did they have to promise the RAF they'd take good care of their Lightning IIs and not drop any over the side?
Junk.
Yawn
Which is junk?
the 2nd best non nuclear aircraft carrier in the world?
Or the the best fighter jet in the world?
You think the f35b is the best fighter jet in the world?
Maybe not f35b specifically, but definitely one of the f35 triplets