one of the stupider ideas from a nation that's spent most of the last 70 years finding ways to spend more money on less in virtually every military procurement program we've undertaken.
Imagine if the British decided to continue development of the P.1154. They could have evolved the plenum-chamber V/STOL engine to burn a lot less fuel with modern engine technology, and the P.1154--especially if they could have sold them to other European air forces--would have become a MASSIVE nightmare for Soviet war planners since targeting every major airfield in Europe with 150 KT nuclear bombs wouldn't work because squadrons of this supersonic fighter being dispersed to any piece of flat land.
Do you reckon a Harrier would even get off the deck if you could physically find the space to put the kind of electronics that a Typhoon carries round, never mind the F-35?
The FA2 was stretched to fit the Blue Vixen radar and the Mk106 had 750lbs more thrust than the Mk104.
I think the biggest failure of the British Harrier programme was not adopting the Mk107 with 23,800lbs of thrust as soon as it appeared. The extra power would have allowed extra growth and as a result the British would not have been backed into a development corner where their options were to spend billions on a less effective aircraft or retire them early.
If it's not a case that you can cut to 40k tonnes and get 2 carriers then keep the size as is. I believe you are right on this point.Making the QE smaller doesn't save all that much money (steel being relatively cheap). Their size means they can generate sorties quicker than smaller carriers and physically carry more aircraft.
The problem with getting rid of the Harrier is that it left Britain without a carrier plane til whenever the f35 becomes available.What do you cut to keep Harrier - Tornado or Typhoon? Both infinitely better aircraft carrying much more ordnance and a far wider range of it.
A 40,000t carrier wouldn't have been much cheaper than a 65,000t version but would have been far inferior in airgroup capacity, sortie generation etc.
Do you reckon a Harrier would even get off the deck if you could physically find the space to put the kind of electronics that a Typhoon carries round, never mind the F-35?
Was there an option to put the Harriers into reserve and pull them out when the carriers were in commission. I don't think this was looked at.
That said if you want to go down that road be damn sure you get the f35 as soon as the Queen Elizabeth's enter service. When are the f35s due to be available to Britain at the moment? 2023?
Limited enough numbers that the US will be providing at least half the air group on the new carriers til at least 2023.The RAF expects them in service from 2018 - https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/Lightningii.cfm
Is that necessarily a problem, if potential opponents think that they would simply be handed over like AIM9Ls or even worse potentially even be flown by the US crews?Limited enough numbers that the US will be providing at least half the air group on the new carriers till at least 2023.
Why "Treason", is that not a strong word for simply making a cost v benefit analysis that from the benefit of 2017 looks like it might actually be totally correct? The UK has not needed to fight a carrier war without help since harrier was retired and unless we do before QE/F35 arrives then cutting them saved limited money for no loss?i too would use the word "treason" as some posters used earlier in regards to UK, politicians, and related matters such as this.
It is also worth noting that there is more than one way to achieve a given military effect. 35 years ago the only way to provide air defence to a task group or put bombs on target out of range of land-based bombers was to hang weapons on a Harrier. Nowadays the RN has the Type 45 with Sea Viper which is vastly more capable than Sea Dart, and the SSNs all have Tomahawk which is vastly more capable of penetrating enemy air defences than Harrier was on it's best day.Why "Treason", is that not a strong word for simply making a cost v benefit analysis that from the benefit of 2017 looks like it might actually be totally correct? The UK has not needed to fight a carrier war without help since harrier was retired and unless we do before QE/F35 arrives then cutting them saved limited money for no loss?
Actually it isn't. VSTOL carrier aircraft massively cut your training costs because your pilots don't have to practice landings on a regular basis (especially with the F-35, which is apparently very easy (relatively) to land).
You're right that the Russians have CTOL aircraft on smaller carriers than the QEs. Have you ever seen the photos of the MiG-29s and Su-27-s being launched off their carriers? A couple of small air-to-air missiles and probably just about enough fuel to do a few laps of the fleet.
Making the QE smaller doesn't save all that much money (steel being relatively cheap). Their size means they can generate sorties quicker than smaller carriers and physically carry more aircraft.
What do you cut to keep Harrier - Tornado or Typhoon? Both infinitely better aircraft carrying much more ordnance and a far wider range of it.
A 40,000t carrier wouldn't have been much cheaper than a 65,000t version but would have been far inferior in airgroup capacity, sortie generation etc.
Do you reckon a Harrier would even get off the deck if you could physically find the space to put the kind of electronics that a Typhoon carries round, never mind the F-35?
I suppose that is the question.Is that necessarily a problem, if potential opponents think that they would simply be handed over like AIM9Ls or even worse potentially even be flown by the US crews?
I suppose that is the question.
Let's say there's a conflict that Britain enters into that the USA doesn't agree with. Are you willing to reduce your airgroup in half. I imagine the answer would be that Brtiain doesn't plan to enter into any conflicts without American backing.
That's fair enough but you don't always get to plan what fights you go into.
Compared to other ways of operating fast jets from aircraft carriers, mishap rates from STOVL aircraft are actually lower than from CATOBAR: it's much safer and easier to stop and then land, rather than land and then stop. It's also worth noting that a landing mishap on a CATOBAR carrier will block the deck and prevent other aircraft from landing - that's why the USN carriers all have refuelling tankers on board, and indeed the Russians lost a carrier aircraft off Syria for exactly this reason. With STOVL aircraft, because they're landing on one of multiple spots on the deck then the deck will never be fouled enough to stop an aircraft short of fuel from landing safely.Imo VSTOL aircraft not only cost way more to buy and operate, they have also a higher mishap rate due to their peculiarities, so whatever reduction in training cost, if any, is more than offset by the other increases. As to the russian, indian and chinese CVs and their planes, first your description of the respective aircraft capabilities is rather exagerated, secondly how is a VSTOL any better in that respect? If anything, due to the extra weight of the VTOL features, they are even worse. If the VSTOLs are so good, why are not the americans (and indeed the other navies i mentioned) ordering them for all their big CVNs?
The money wasn't there - what else are you going to cut to save the money to make up for it? The defence budget was squeezed to the extent that they had to lose one aircraft type from the fast jet fleet, essentially either Harrier or Tornado. That means cutting either 81 Tornado or <72 Harrier (can't find the number that were actually in service - it will be fewer than the number of airframes sold to the US: 6 in total were operational). The saving was estimated at £1 Billion - very roughly, making that up would require the closure of two hospitals, or trebling the size of the "bedroom tax". The cost saving here is rather substantial.As to the Harrier itself, imo there is never the question of replacing any of the others, but providing interim capability at a reasonable price for the country (not that i am in any way a fan of the UK government's adventures as America's sidekick, but just saying) if they were to be replaced by F-35B it should only been so when the thing is actually useable, and again if they wanted VSTOL a smaller ship, with less crew, smaller machinery and so on would have been significantly cheaper, in the past they gave up on big carriers and went with the Invincibles, now suddenly they build these big expensive CVBs (nevermind some of the requirements for them are dubious as well, just like the story of CVA01) but still with VSTOL planes! So they get the most expensive ship with the most expensive and least capable planes.
Why "Treason", is that not a strong word for simply making a cost v benefit analysis that from the benefit of 2017 looks like it might actually be totally correct? The UK has not needed to fight a carrier war without help since harrier was retired and unless we do before QE/F35 arrives then cutting them saved limited money for no loss?
they have also a higher mishap rate due to their peculiarities
so whatever reduction in training cost, if any, is more than offset by the other increases.
As to the russian, indian and chinese CVs and their planes, first your description of the respective aircraft capabilities is rather exagerated, secondly how is a VSTOL any better in that respect? If anything, due to the extra weight of the VTOL features, they are even worse. If the VSTOLs are so good, why are not the americans (and indeed the other navies i mentioned) ordering them for all their big CVNs?
As to the Harrier itself, imo there is never the question of replacing any of the others, but providing interim capability at a reasonable price for the country
if they wanted VSTOL a smaller ship, with less crew, smaller machinery and so on would have been significantly cheaper, in the past they gave up on big carriers and went with the Invincibles
now suddenly they build these big expensive CVBs (nevermind some of the requirements for them are dubious as well, just like the story of CVA01) but still with VSTOL planes! So they get the most expensive ship with the most expensive and least capable planes.
Considering the sudden and hush-hush axing of the Harrier, Nimrod etc. to make room for american stuff, a purely political decision, considering all this and what happened in the last decades is only degrading steadily the country defence industry capabilities and abilities to the advantage of a foreign power, what other word to use? Isn't preserving a country's independent self-defence capabilities a primary goal for any nation? This is the country who's aeronautical industry used to build the Spitfire, Mosquito, Hunter, Harrier and so on, that industry soon to be reduced to a footnote. Even a single export (or even upgrade order) for a Harrier FA3 or Nimrod would have worth all the money spent on those programs, and not to mention that a 40,000 ton QE would have had attractive export potential too.
Agreed,The cost of a ship doesn't rise at the same rate as the tonnage. A 40,000t ship wouldn't have saved much money but would have been vastly less capable. The RN didn't just pull the size of the ship out of their arses as the first random number they thought of...
Frankly given the costs of the hardware, the UK can't afford to build a 5th gen fighter by itself, more over the UK's record in defence projects has been getting increasingly worse due to it's own issues. I'd also question where you get a "40K QE export" from, who exactly do you think wants it? the 20-30K Amphibs are filling many nations needs, or they are building domestically anyway.
I agree, the UK defence spending was/is mindbogglingly wasteful, i don't know what are they doing with all that money, given the size and equipment of the forces. As to export for the 40k ton QE, apart from the al-Saud "pals" and other GCC fatcats, aren't they cosying to Erdogan as well now? These could have been some possibilities, another could have been Australia for a slightly downscaled design, and so on.
Anyway, sound or not, i've made my arguments, i don't have much else to add here.