Does the RAF need a STOVL capability? - The Royal Navy - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
shaun	Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 152 ( 5-Apr-2008 16:47:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I've been thinking about this as the nature of JFH obviously has implications on the airwing of the CVFs, given that any aircraft (whether Dave-B or -C) that will be deployed on board the CVF will undoubtedly come from a joint RAF/FAA pool. My question is, after the GR7/9s retire, why does the RAF need to replace this with a similar type of aircraft? Operations in Afghanistan are met by a number of high-end aircraft such as F15Es and Mirage 2000s that don't have the rough-field T/O and landing capability. It was suggested on this board that because of high-performance aircraft engines as well as a number of other reasons, CAS is better undertaken by helicopters than fast jets. The USAF's response to this is launching SDBs from their Eagles. Yet the RAF still sees it fit to eat up JFH's GR7/9s at detriment to the FAA's fulfilment of the Carrier Strike/Naval Strike Wing requirement. Seeing as the RAF could meet CAS committments in Afghanistan by deploying GR4s with SDBs (or equivalent weapons), and that the Cold War-requirement for rough-field take-offs have not materialised, why does the RAF need the F35B? If they really wanted fast jets with good low-level performance they could even use Hawks... The MoD could then allocate all F35B buys to the FAA. Conversely, if the MoD deem it absolutely essential to retain the capabilities of the Harrier and Lightning-B within the RAF, then they could do so but forfeit the GR4 replacement and allow the RN to build CVF in CTOL configuration, handing expeditionary strike primarily to the FAA (though they still would have Typhoons capable of launching Storm Shadow and Paveways). Last Edited By: shaun 5-Apr-2008 16:49:19. Edited 1 time.
Zen9		#1	[-]
Posts: 3408 ( 5-Apr-2008 23:54:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	STOVL offeres ease of getting high sortie performance form the deck of a carrier. S/VTOL offeres operations from a carrier or a rough field. F35-B will do this. It will do it while being a better fighter/attack machine than a F/A18 Hornet, or SuperHornet. Afghanistan should not dominate long term procurement decisions, which should cover a far wider range of scenarios than hunting the Taliban over Herat province or surpressing Sadrists in Basra. In the event of having to fight alone, RAF support of the RN maybe essential, and RAF F35-B's offer that as the successor the Harrier. In the event of not having good airfields conveniently located near to trouble F35-B will give us the flexibility to put airpower where its needed, without having to base the RAF thousands of miles away burning fuel and money just tanking their assets to get near to the where the fighting is. Then there is this nasty stuff called runway denial munitions. Which an enemy has the annoying habbit of trying to use on your airfields. Just because today we're operating alongside the US Air Force and have air superiority in buckets does'nt mean we will always have that on tap and available when and where we need it to keep some devious b___d of an enemy from turning the airfields the RAF is operating from at the time into a reproduction of the surface of the moon. It rather helps if you can take off in very short distances and land in very short distances, from a rough airfield, as it keeps your options open and makes it harder for the enemy to deny you airpower. That F35-B will do that and land of a pitching deck in the dark, in bad weather rather helps too. If its cheap CAS from a helicopter then we're talking Apache or Lynx and right now both can operate from a carriers deck.
Trouble	are GR4s really that good in afghanistan ?	#2	[-]
Posts: 210 ( 6-Apr-2008 22:38:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	i think the gr7/9s went there because GR4s couldnt get out of the airfield at kandahar, and when it gets rocketed the harriers can just use whatever stretch happens to be available. gr4s need a lot of runway, esp hot and high. hence why typhoon with its superlative performance is going out ASAP to ease the JFH burden. at which point we might see a lot more of CVS Harrier flying finally.
Zen9		#3	[-]
Posts: 3409 ( 6-Apr-2008 23:38:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Of course Typhoon was designed to operate from strips just about 500m long, which was based on assesments that such strips of runway would survive a runway denial attack.
Scouse		#4	[-]
Posts: 239 ( 7-Apr-2008 10:45:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Quick answer is yes - the RAF do need STOVL capability. We are saddled with Joint Farce Harrier and there is no other way that RAF pilots will be able to land on a carrier deck. The logistics of trying to keep a separate pool of CATOBAR deck qualified pilots current from a joint RAF/RN flying programme are significant and, as the USN proves with grim and tragic frequency, deck landing skills are perishable. So its STOVL or we're back to naval aviation being the sole preserve of dark-blue squadrons....and we all know the chances of the latter happening!.
Nathan	RAF manned F35C	#5	[-]
Posts: 2245 ( 7-Apr-2008 22:14:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Scouse wrote: Quick answer is yes - the RAF do need STOVL capability. We are saddled with Joint Farce Harrier and there is no other way that RAF pilots will be able to land on a carrier deck. The logistics of trying to keep a separate pool of CATOBAR deck qualified pilots current from a joint RAF/RN flying programme are significant and, as the USN proves with grim and tragic frequency, deck landing skills are perishable. So its STOVL or we're back to naval aviation being the sole preserve of dark-blue squadrons....and we all know the chances of the latter happening!. Wasn't there a post by somebody knowledgeable in these things a while back that automated landing aids on F35C were believed to dramatically reduce the training issue to the extent that the problem disappears? If automated landing can't be made to work reliably then I don't see much future for UCAVs!
Zen9		#6	[-]
Posts: 3410 ( 8-Apr-2008 00:37:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Flaw in that logic is the idea automated aids for VL landing have'nt improved as well, still making VL safer and easier than conventional landing.
Scouse		#7	[-]
Posts: 240 ( 8-Apr-2008 11:18:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Nathan wrote: Wasn't there a post by somebody knowledgeable in these things a while back that automated landing aids on F35C were believed to dramatically reduce the training issue to the extent that the problem disappears? If automated landing can't be made to work reliably then I don't see much future for UCAVs! What that doesnt cover though Nathan is the 'defined safe parameters' for autolanding systems. There will be grey areas and defined limits in any automatic system whereby human intervention will be required for a 'wave off' or to abort in the first place. What you do with heavy reliance on autolanders is take away the experience from the pilots during 'easy' landing cycles so that they haven't a prayer when the auto-system turns round and tells you to forget it cos the deck is pitching too much!. The UCAV scenario is a bit different as they will always be more 'expendable' (though not necessarily expendable per se) than a manned aircraft so the ramifications of the autolander throwing its hand in prematurely are considerably less severe. STOVL even with a short landing roll - if that is the approach -35B uses to get its bringback weights where we want them - will always be an easier proposition than full CATOBAR and, therefore, will always be more fleible in operational terms.
FreeloaderUK		#8	[-]
Posts: 99 (12-Apr-2008 20:48:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	a STOVL capability is required- the Harrier has been around 40years purely because of STOVL- lets be honest, there are faster planes out there that can carry a greater payload also at a much greater range.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply