CVF and Carrier Strike thread

[sunnoficarus]

And your fantasy glider MPA will come with a high sink rate undercarriage in case things get a bit rough? Last time I checked, large flat grassy fields don't accelerate, decelerate and move randomly about 3 axes.
One presumes it also takes it's very long wings off first before trying to land on a pitching deck. Hat tip: The longer the wings, the more they are effected by the movement of the deck.


Nope, 0:38, can't see any issues with using a glider of a moving flight deck.

[tekirdag]

Stemme S10 décollage 36 planeur à Corbas - YouTube
Nope, 0:38, can't see any issues with using a glider of a moving flight deck.

Firstly, you have a pic of a Stemme with the full 24m wings, instead of the shorter 18m version.

Secondly, unlike a fighter, glider wings are designed to flex - that is how they retain their strength.

Thirdly, that take off is with the smallest engine possible (for gliding), whereas the UAV would have a bigger unit. Anyway, if take-off was a problem, you could add a simple winch (€60,000 from Skylaunch) and have the UAV airborne in 20 meters.







Glider launch - as good as many military jets.





And yes, you could launch with just 150m, if you wanted.
And yes, you can winch launch a Stemme with the engine going.
Note that the shorter winged K21 has very little flex in the wing, in comparison with the longer winged Stemme 10.



.

[meridian]

Tek, just a quick question before you carry on your bromance with sunno;

Are you fucking well on crack

Just askin like

[Yokel]

Can we leave odd fantasies, which involve changes to the laws of Physics, out?

Can we leave fantasies about secret new aircraft using old designs with new materials out?

Can we leave non carrier/non naval topics out? Thanks.

Until last week I avoided this thread - and felt better for it. Now that the announcement has been made, and the decision to switch to F35B, things are different. This may be a decision for the best because:

1. Both carriers will go into service.
2. The capability will be generated earlier.
3. The problems of going from having no embarked fixed wing aviation for a decade and then picking up the baton and going for gold no longer are as significant a worry.

However, there is the issue of where do we go now? What should we do now? I would suggest that the RN jocks currently Stateside flying the F/A18 could be more usefully employed flying the AV8B or perhaps the intact GR9s that some speculated would be used as they are, whilst others have highlighted the differences between GR9 and AV8B? Maybe we should offer the US a refund?

Flying AV8B/GR9 from Lusty/QE offers the following:

1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful, during this decade.

2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.

3. Continuing to operate our own jets will make it a lot easier to recruit, train, and retain RN fixed wing Pilots for the future.

4. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.

5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.

6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious or Queen Elizabeth would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle (and vice versa) if needed in a future operation this decade. Likewise Italy and Spain, and their AV8B equipped carriers.

7. This would not be a U turn, but would be the Government amending policy in the light of developments, and could be portrayed as such.

Yes, I suggested this idea (and others) over here (on the Harrier thread on PPRuNe), although that was before the switch back to F35B. Now that the switch has been made, I expect that the practical issues will dictate a number of changes.

Note for tekirdag: I do not suggest any form of Harrier taking the place of F35B, merely that it could provide both a means of getting into a position where F35B can be brought into service with relative ease, AND provide a carrier strike capability this decade.

BTW I have found an old briefing paper on CVF:

FLEET HEADQUARTERS CARRIER STRIKE BRIEFING

Now we need go get back on track....

[tekirdag]

Note for tekirdag: I do not suggest any form of Harrier taking the place of F35B, merely that it could provide both a means of getting into a position where F35B can be brought into service with relative ease, AND provide a carrier strike capability this decade.

Now we need go get back on track....

Teki is listening, my old son, but the political and aviation world is not.

The problem we shall face is that F35b will be cancelled, largely for reasons beyond the control of a small and impoverished nation like us.

Ok, now what do you do? Bring back the Stringbag? Face facts, Yokel, you need a fall-back option, and one that does not cost too much or take too long to implement.


And as to your suggestions re AV8bs. Yes, well, jolly good. But the bottom line is that we should never have been placed in the position we are in, with no naval air capability whatsoever. If politicians had listened to me we would have had smaller carriers up and running by now, and several squadrons of new Harriers aboard. Not in 2015, not in 2020, but right now - already veterans of the Libyan campaign.

So what was the best option to go for, back in the late '90s - a hypothetical high capability but in reality a complete zero capability, or my 'within our budget' capability?? As the Irishman said to the lost driver: "if I was you, sorr, I would not be starting from here".


.

[jimmys_best_mate]

Part of me so badly wants to see an actual Sea Harrier 3 emerging from a hangar in Bristol now, just to know that the world actually is as mental as Tek's crack induced rantings.

[AIRBORNEJOCK]

Without going into the glider physics we've just had is there anything to stop a UAV going off a ski ramp?

[tekirdag]

Without going into the glider physics we've just had is there anything to stop a UAV going off a ski ramp?

Depends on the weight of the UAV and the size of its wings - which is why we got on to the inane discussion about gliders in the first place.

Put it this way. If the UAV was a Gem-7, you could chuck it off the bow of the carrier at zero speed and it would still fly. If the UAV was one of Suno's Reaper/Predator look-alikes, the answer is no - not even with 150m of run-up.

So, without going into the physics again - if you want a cheapo-carrier, with no cat and traps, you need a cheapo UAV to go with it. But with reducing electronics dimensions and weights, I don't think you would be losing much capability if you opted for a Stemme-15 sized UAV for surveillance opps. While the little Gem-7 could be used for real close-up and dangerous work, where losing the UAV might be a real possibility (they would be sooo cheap to produce, and have a 36 hour endurance.)


.


.

[diggerdaddy]

this whole thing breaks me. The more I think about it the more it hurts. Big Boats= CTOL, Small Boats= VTOL and VTOL in small numbers and Helis + Marines = Not a QE. I real think its that simple

[tekirdag]

this whole thing breaks me. The more I think about it the more it hurts. Big Boats= CTOL, Small Boats= VTOL and VTOL in small numbers and Helis + Marines = Not a QE. I real think its that simple

Yup, you got it in one. Shame the navy brass and politicians did not listen ten years ago. But this was all about Gordon Brown buying votes, not about defence. The one-eyed git should be in court, rather than pretending to be an MP.


.