Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

carrier advice
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5963		 Page 4 of 4
Author:  swin_lad [ July 3rd, 2015, 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: carrier advice
I was thinking more in regards of Cat and Trap cycles as that's really what holds back naval aircraft with regards to age
Author:  Blackbuck [ July 3rd, 2015, 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: carrier advice
swin_lad wrote:
I was thinking more in regards of Cat and Trap cycles as that's really what holds back naval aircraft with regards to age
^ This, you can zero-hour components and try to make a worthwhile SLEP out of them but the more cost-effect option would be to buy MOTS and get F/A-18s

IMO the F-4 and Buccaneer mix would probably make it to GW1 at the latest before retirement to F/A-18C/Ds which would cut down on expenses by combining two supply chains. CVA-01 and 02 would probably soldier on until around the initial phase of GW2 before needing heavy SLEPs or retirement which would leave a gap between commissioning of the new QEs and decommissioning of the old QEs. To maintain fixed-wing capability I'd envisage basing the Hornet fleet between US carriers and CdG during the interim.
With the commissioning of QE and then PoW and delays in the JCA programme I'd not be surprised to see a batch of F/A-18E/Fs and possibly EA-18Gs (if we're really still committed to the fixed-wing game) to supplement the C/D fleet in the interim. Once JCA reaches IOC I'd wager that they would replace the C/Ds with them and maintain a mix of JCA and Super Hornets the JCA being common across both services allowing for embarkation as required. Helicopters would probably look the same with Sea King > Merlin and Lynx > Wildcat. AEW is an interesting subject as with CATOBAR capability we *could* operate E-2s but whether we would on grounds of cost or not I don't know. IMO it'd end up with either a small clutch of E-2s like CdG possesses or Merlin based HEW systems like the Italians use.

For FOC on QE and PoW I'd envisage the following air-groups

QE - Full Capacity
1x Sqn F-35C (10 Airframes) (Joint FAA / RAF)
2x Sqn F/A-18F (8 Airframes Each)
1x Sqn of F/A-18E (10 Airframes)
1x Flight of E/A-18G (4 Airframes)
6x Wildcats (HMA)
4x Merlins (HEW)

PoW - Standard Capacity
2x Sqn F/A-18F (8 Airframes Each)
1x Sqn of F/A-18E (10 Airframes)
1x Flight of E/A-18G (4 Airframes)
3x Merlins (HMA)
3x Merlins (HEW)
4x Apaches (AAC / JFH)
Author:  swin_lad [ July 3rd, 2015, 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: carrier advice
But if we are CATOBAR why would be not have Tiffie?
Author:  Blackbuck [ July 3rd, 2015, 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: carrier advice
Because the other Eurofighter partner nations have no requirement for a naval fighter and if France remains a part of the programme you end up with more likely than not with a debacle similar to the current JCA not to mention the gap of over a decade between the legacy aircraft being retired and the Anglo-French-Eurofighter-Rafale-Thing reaching even IOC let alone FOC.

The F/A-18 is the only logical solution to the problem IMO, as much as I like the idea of Sea Typhoon and Sea Gripen they require too much money to get into a workable state of affairs even if you go at it early on there's the whole thing of having two aircraft that look similar but are actually rather different on the inside.
Author:  swin_lad [ July 3rd, 2015, 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: carrier advice
If France hadn't withdrawn the aircraft would have probably come much sooner IMHO and you would be looking at about 98 so I would guess legacy a/c could last that long.
Author:  Blackbuck [ July 3rd, 2015, 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: carrier advice
That's doubtful because if they do stay you have the two different sub-programs to worry about. IOC for Rafale M was between 2002 and 2004, so with all the extra complexities of the marine aircraft to worry about I don't see it entering service before then.
Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/