UK Defence Forum

When are the USMC f35b expected to arrive on hmsqe with the 6 British f35b already onboard ?

Nuclear vs Non-Nuclear Carriers

(Curious Droid) 22nd October 2019

HMS Queen Elizabeth and the USS Gerald R Ford are the newest, most modern aircraft carriers in the world but why did the UK not go with nuclear to power their carrier like the US.
In this video, we look at the pros and cons of nuclear power carriers in a modern navy, in particular, the Royal Navy.

Written, researched and presented by Paul Shillito

serge750 wrote:The strakes/gun pods helped with the harrier aswell,

Would it be a good idea or feasible to put a parachute to slow the decent & prevent damage & a tracker on the drop tank so they can be picked up by a hellicopter & re-used ?

No not really.

serge750 wrote:Would it be a good idea or feasible to put a parachute to slow the decent & prevent damage & a tracker on the drop tank so they can be picked up by a hellicopter & re-used ?

The only time you drop a tank is when you're over enemy territory and you're manoeuvring to avoid a threat, or when you've got a serious issue. It would cost more to send a helicopter to pick it up than it would be worth, and more than likely would be very risky to the helicopter and crew.

Even in WW2 the cost of dropping tanks on the 8th Air Forces daylight bombing raids was seen as so costly in both money and aluminium that alternatives were sought. There was actually a cardboard/resin disposable tank developed. Only problem was it could only hold aviation fuel for about an hour before the fuel ate its way through and started to leak. Usual procedure was to drain the tank as soon as possible and then ditch before it started to leak.

The other issue is that if you drop the tank you'll be left with the pylon, which is also an expensive piece of kit. You could jettison the pylon, but then you're left with the attachment points visible...so you'll not be stealthy still...in full stealth configuration these will be covered very carefully by the ground crew.

https://news.usni.org/2019/10/23/marine ... le-amphibs
There is an operation shown here of 13 f35b,s on the America class with high sortie rates so there seems to be a fast track on this aircraft

If they plan on using the USA America & Tripoli as Lightning carriers then they should bite the bullet fit a ski jump to both vessels. They don't need the space for choppers as is the normal argument & both ships were specifically designed without the well deck & with improved aviation facilities.

Dahedd wrote:If they plan on using the USA America & Tripoli as Lightning carriers then they should bite the bullet fit a ski jump to both vessels. They don't need the space for choppers as is the normal argument & both ships were specifically designed without the well deck & with improved aviation facilities.

The whole taking up helo spots was just an excuse this is obvious as it was stated a ski jump would take up 2-3 helo spots which we all know is bull.

It’s always been managing the political risk, the fear has always been that if the wasps and now the americas are shown to be too good in the carrier role it’d put the big decks at risk of cuts in favour of smaller flat tops. Due to this the USN has always seen it better to accept the lower performance of no ski jump.

When it comes to extra tanks on the F-35 then stealth tanks will be the way forward fitted under the wing in the same way the old Buck tanks were i.e fiitted to the wing and not a pylon

Well this is a first. I have a wife taking a flight to Canada for a trip with her friend whiich our son is trying to track on his RN ship currently out in a position to do so!

Maybe having a USMC Squadron embarked on QE for its far east deployment may provide some weight to fitting ski jumps to the USNs "Lightning" Carriers.

Why are so many Brits seemingly obsessed with the US fitting ski jumps?

Ron5 wrote:Why are so many Brits seemingly obsessed with the US fitting ski jumps?

I don’t think it’s obsessed more that knowing the benefits it brings not understanding why the US don’t seem to “want” those benefits and either not understand or not wanting to believe that it’s always been to ward off unwanted political desitions.

Ron5 wrote:Why are so many Brits seemingly obsessed with the US fitting ski jumps?

I actually think the US is right not to. The LHD's are there for landing troops and getting a strong first wave ashore to secure territory is incredibly important to allow the follow on landing craft to get ashore without heavy losses.

But...if the USN will struggle to provide carriers (and its not clear they will) with the delays to the Ford it could make sense for the first 2 America Class to have them, to make best use of the F-35's full capability, if they're going to be used as CVL's (like they have off Libya and in the Gulf). There is of course an argument that having 2 ships 'non standard' adds complications to USMC procedures, and also the arrival of the 2 QE Class could alleviate some of the pressure on the USN in some areas.

I did think the discussion regarding ski jumps was centred on the two America class "Lighting" Carriers rather than all the USN's LHDs.

2 F-35 in the hover off QE's port side, still impressive from a distance...and the noise...looks like Tideforce on the starboard side off the bow.

I've asked this before but it's been a while:

I was getting a tour of Hornet and the vet docent asked us "the USN owes the Brits for three major carrier innovations, does anyone know what they are?"

So what were his answers? One might be a surprise.

Ron5 wrote:I've asked this before but it's been a while:

I was getting a tour of Hornet and the vet docent asked us "the USN owes the Brits for three major carrier innovations, does anyone know what they are?"

So what were his answers? One might be a surprise.

If I remember right the RN is responsible for the following

Angled flight deck
Steam Cat and Trap
Off set island
Aircraft lifts
Ski ramp
Twin island

Ron5 wrote:I was getting a tour of Hornet and the vet docent asked us "the USN owes the Brits for three major carrier innovations, does anyone know what they are?"

Apart from the aircraft carrier itself...

Angled deck
Mirror landing sight
Fighter Control System

Don't think the ski jump or twin island would be picked by the USN. Steam cats might, but accelerators already existed, steam cats were a variation on a theme.

Ron5 wrote:I was getting a tour of Hornet and the vet docent asked us "the USN owes the Brits for three major carrier innovations, does anyone know what they are?"

Erm..... everything

OK, to break it down:

First take-off and landing on a moving ship
Full-length flight deck
Offset island
Catapults
Arrestor gear
Angled flight deck
Landing light system
Ski Jump

Add "First takeoff and landing by a jet aircraft from an aircraft carrier" too. Done by Eric "Winkle" Brown RN, 3 December 1945.

Really I think the only innovations on modern carriers that haven't come from the UK is nuclear power and EMAL Cats

You’ve missed the rubber deck

Compilation of key gvmnt statements about what Global Britain will mean in practice (37 pages, before moving onto think tanks, books and the press) has one roundabout reference to Modernising Defence and only this one specific mention:
"Answering member: Penny Mordaunt | Ministry of Defence As I said in my speech on 15 May, the national carrier policy will lay the blueprint for how we propose to utilise our aircraft carriers to deliver global Britain's objectives around the world. This policy is currently under development."

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... fullreport

PS State of play will be debated on Monday, but I doubt that anyone will notice as there is also "other business" to hand