The EMALS system is already being integrated into USS Ford, we are buying the second set of hardware. The arrester gear is not problematic, what is problematic is the hook on the C variant, for which fixes are being investigated.
Finally, the part regarding tankers is also mostly hoop. If to achieve it's bring-back weight, the B-variant has to do the rolling vertical , then it will be just as vulnerable to a foul deck, which is less to do with the arrester wires and more to do with the safe landing area. In any case, with a combat radius of 380nm compared to 700-odd, your B pilot is going to be struggling with fuel anyway!
To be fair, there is actually very little wrong with the current ship design. The problem is a fight to the death between vested interests in MB. The aircraft question is important, but essentialy it's a choice between one option with no plan B if it goes t1ts and another option where there are alternate or interim solutions.
No disrespect to you and your theory on aircraft carriers NB , but I am getting a tad bit bored, by the constant spin, from the grown ups. Re cats and traps ! VSTOL, etc and what life will be like in the Future FAA. It's not going to happen is it??? end of !!!
By "f/w capability", I assume you mean "RN f/w capability". By "those whose goal is to see this die", are you referring to the 'jobsworths' of a certain overmanned organisation to whom:
* Carrier-borne aircraft are anathema even though they have been responsible for just about every enemy aircraft shot down by British planes since WW II?
* Any operational deployment longer than six months would come as a culture shock even though it would probably involve being accommodated in hotels?
* More than four months deployed in any two year period would contravene their harmony rules?
* Home each day for tea and stickies and 'all night in' is the norm for the vast majority?
* The 'rank and file' rarely enter the combat zone.
* Routine flying is okay as long as it's not at weekends, in particularly bad weather or over the sea?
* CAS, Maritime Patrol, ISTAR, AEW and AT (all particularly valuable for the conduct of joint operations) come way down the list of priorities compared to fast pointy-nosed jet fighters restricted to operating from land bases.
* The demise of the Fleet Air Arm can't come soon enough so that people are no longer able to make unfavourable comparisons with them?
A certain air-centric website provides a further clue to the identity of this organisation here.
NG !!!! Nail on the head. Quote from NB on Prunne[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFAE6"]The STOVL vs CTOL (what is now called CATOBAR) preferences will include some or all of the following.
1. As noted above, STOVL lets the RAF retain cockpits while primarily living ashore, based on the idea that a two-week embarkation couts as delivering carrier strike capability. It's not evil, it's just the way the RAF percieves Maritime Aviation [/TD]
NG - You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. Probably just as vehement in their opposition are the Army, who just don't get why other (expensive) capabilities need funding while they're trying to fight a war (previously two wars) on a shoestring.Scouse, I was thinking Wayne's World 2 actually! When QEC and PoW complete (and they will), it;s another ballgame.
I would love to share your enthusiasm and optimsism, but in my heart of hearts, game over!!! When they complete. possible one as a Commando / Rotary wing carrier, the other mothballed, and later to the breakers yard in Turkey!!!!! Ps hope I'm wrong, but I don't trust the grown ups anymore
One of the things concentrating the minds of the pollies right now is the simple fact that Uncle Sam has essentially said -
"Dear Europe, thank you for all the delightful runs ashore you have given us over the years. It has been an absolute pleasure to provide the majority of the military muscle behind your NATO security blanket and your unstinting support in talking about funding the capabilities that you need, when you get around to it, has warmed our hearts. Unfortunately, we (like you) are now somewhat strapped for cash and face some security challenges that we've got to deal with in our Pacific area. So, we're b8ggering off to the 5th and 7th fleet AOs - if you want some big boys naval capabilities you'll have to provide them yourselves. So long and thanks for all the fish....all the best Barry O'Bama".
These are geo-political realities, which the grown-ups in MB are still trying to adjust to. One thing that this (and it's manifestation in Op Ellamy) means is that cherished official assumptions about not undertaking operations without "someone else" providing certain capabilities are going to need revisiting. By the time the ships complete (and I'd estimate that QE is currently about 50% complete, with pretty much all the components of the ship fabricated, PoW about 5% and 15%) this reality will have percolated into the new planning assumptions. At which point, disposing of two working highly capable assets, (for which btw even now SDSR confirms the requirement for) that have cost £5Bn+ might seem a tad foolish. You'll also be delighted to know that Leyel Recycling won't be able to accommodate them!
What we are seeing now, is an attempt to pre-empt that debate by forcing certain decisions, based on the perceptions of here and now. Truth and hard facts are usually a good antidote if spread widely enough.