"My new favourite word is 'Omnishambles'." Topic

link

One of Malcolm Tucker's many fine creations…. ;-)

link

(If you ever fancy a masterclass in truly world class swearing, look up "best of Malcolm Tucker" on Youtube….)

I still prefer "nuckerhole" myself, but that's a pretty good neologism there, no doubt.

The more I hear about these carriers the more ridiculous they sound. 60000 tonners without cats and traps? Who was the mental midget who came up with that? These ships will be wholly dependent on the successful commissioning of the VTOL version of the F-35 (the most expensive and least capable of the three variants), and the lack of a fixed-wing AWACS capability is almost criminal in this day and age IMHO.

Hoser

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the original choice – changing the 'plane and starting a ship redesign to accomodate the change (i.e. now need cats and traps) a few years into the program was never going to be cheaper.

The people who made the decision may be Eton and Oxbridge educated – but they ain't too smart. They just wanted to look decisive – and didn't think it through as all.

"…..and the lack of a fixed-wing AWACS capability is almost criminal in this day and age IMHO".

Sounds like the lessons from the Falklands were not learned, or if they were, have been forgotten in the interim. That was some time ago.

"Whatever the rights or wrongs of the original choice – changing the 'plane and starting a ship redesign to accomodate the change (i.e. now need cats and traps) a few years into the program was never going to be cheaper."

???????????????

I thought that they designed it with cats and traps and just made the decision to drop them in favor of the VTOLs.

I expect to see an osprey awacs variant to fill THAT gap…

perhaps fitted with a mount like the Saab 340 AEW&C

link

No they're getting a helicopter based AWACS although they delayed the funding so even that's not expected until 2022 now….

Thomas Arne and James Thomson must be spinning in their graves.

Rick

These carriers will be the death knell for the RN as a power projection force. IMHO they should scrap the SSBNs and use the savings on restoring their surface fleet.

Hoser

"These carriers will be the death knell for the RN as a power projection force."

In spite of the ridiculous VTOL decision, they're considerably more capable than anything the RN's had since the 1970s at best, probably earlier. Given that I don't see how they can be the "death knell" for its power projection – either it's been dead and buried for 40 years, or they'll sustain such power projection as it's managed since the Ark Royal was laid up. They're certainly not the step up that they could and should have been, but there's no way they're a step down from the Invincibles. Well, unless the F-35 tanks completely, anyway…. ;-)

I thought that they designed it with cats and traps and just made the decision to drop them in favor of the VTOLs.

Nope – designed without cats and traps – which is why changing from the STOVL F35 to the full deck F35 was a dumb idea if you wanted to save money.

The idea was that the boat would last longer than the planes – so they would be capable of a midlife update to (perhaps) an extended flight deck & cats and traps added in if the next plane needed them. But as ordered – no cats and traps as STOVL & helicopters don't need 'em.

link

That's the thing, Dom. The F-35 has been snakebitten, and the easiest version for the Americans to cancel would be the VTOL version, which IMHO is a step backwards from the Harrier in that a substantial part of the volume and weight is dedicated solely to takeoff and landing. The Harrier's vectored thrust system was far superior in that very little was devoted entirely to VSTOL when compared to the F-35.

Hoser

20th, I agree that the addition of cats & traps would have been prohibitively expensive at this stage of the game. My question goes to the original design: why build a 60000 ton carrier if all you're going to deploy is VSTOLs and helos?

Hoser

Yep, the original concept was ridiculous – on that tonnage there's no way it should've been a STOVL platform.

As I recall the plan was to keep the Harriers going as well – so if the F35 was delayed ("how could that happen" the cry goes up) then you'd still have something to fly off the shiny new carrier when it became available.

Course if you scrap the fairly recently refitted Ark Royal, sell all the harriers for spare parts, change the choice of plane, start on an immediate redesign of the ship and then switch back to the original plane then you end up with :

no planes if the F35 is delayed (check)
a carrier that costs more and is now running late (check)
no carrier for about 5 years (check)
a carrier that will still be finished before the new planes can be afforded (Check)

Omnishambles – sounds about right.

My question goes to the original design: why build a 60000 ton carrier if all you're going to deploy is VSTOLs and helos?

Part of the aim was to make it "future proof" – although the real sting is in the tail of this report :

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22474019

Built for 40 planes, but will only carry 12.

Although that is still a better fate than the second carrier – which will be mothballed (and eventually scrapped ?) or sold (who to ?) on completion, and will never enter service.

Realistically France is pretty much the only possible buyer, but even if they were seriously interested (tres unlikely….) they'd want catapults and arrestor gear…. ;-)