F-18 Super Hornet for our eventual Carrier Force

[Aircraftpaulcornwall]

Hi All,
Just a quick thought!
We all know that the latest thinking is that we should introduce the F-35 onto our (eventual!!) Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing carriers!!
May I suggest just scrapping the idea of this very expensive aircraft!! - and instead to go for the F-18 Super Hornet.
This is, after all, a battle proven aircraft that carries out all of it's tasked duties more than admirably!
Armed to the teeth, with all of it's various superior weapons, it could take on any adversary and could, most probably outdo any F-35 if needs be!! --Paul

[Red Hound]

Currently I believe the RAF/RN order is for the version that doesn't require catapaults or arrester wires, which were too expensive. The F-18 Super Hornet wouldn't be able to operate from the carriers in their current design.

[Aircraftpaulcornwall]

Hi Red Hound,
Yes, many thanks for that mate. - I agree that the steam catapaults and arrester wires would definitely be required with the F-18's as required at the moment.
Although expensive, may I suggest that these be introduced on the new carriers in order to take these new aircraft? - Again though, only a thought! --Paul

[Red Hound]

Given that they have already changed their minds twice on which version of the F-35 they are having I can't see them doing so again, especially so far into the building of these ships. I was disappointed that they didn't go for the catapaults and arrestor gear as that gave so many more options for aircraft to operate from the ships throughout their lifetime.

[Bucky P]

We're building very specialised carriers that will only take VSTOL aircraft such as the F35 so if the F35 were to be cancelled, and lets face it, there have been so many set backs and rumours regarding it being dropped by the US that this is still a possibility, we will be stuffed because in their current format other aircraft such as the F18 cannot operate from it. Very short sighted if you ask me but that's governments for you.

[lmgaylard]

Gents, as far as it stands, we will not be going to 'cat+trap'!
I agree that it is very limiting to build new carriers that can only operate V/STOL aircraft but, apparently, that's all we could afford.
I know a lot of the current FAA fast-jet guys in the US love flying the Super Hornets and would dearly love our FAA to buy them instead of the F-35B. But, having spoke at length to some of the guys, and the FAA pilot currently flying the F-35B, I think we may well be surprised as to how good the aircraft will actually be. Time will tell.
Incidentally, a couple of years back I spoke to Lt Cdr Doug Taylor, who invented the Ski-Jump, and he said that during testing of the ramp in the UK and US many types of aircraft were tested and ALL were successful. Including F-18 Hornets. So we could, in theory, just fit arresting cables and launch Hornets, or any other carrier capable aircraft, of the Ski-Jump......

Funnily, when the Invincible class carriers with Sea Harrier was active, I don't re-call people complaining about not being able to operate other fast-jet types from the deck......

[Supra]

The problem here is that you guys are over-qualified to be in Defence Procurement! Next things you will be saying is:-
.....Although the F35 is umteenth generation capable & can achieve capability with less jets, if an adversary gets a lucky shot or losing an a/c due to malfunction, that will reduce the force by a larger percentage!
.....As we will have managed without a fixed wing carrier-force for 15-20 years by the eventual in-service date, why do we need it at all?
.....That the the new Carriers without Cat's & Traps will be renamed 'Queen' & 'Prince of the Seas' respectively & leased-out to Cruise-ship companies during quiet periods (in a Voyageresque manner??)
Probably you will cite the following examples of previous crass oncompetence to support your assertions:-
.... Being an Island Nation, the entire fixed-wing aviation maritime patrol/ SAR capability was axed.
.... They leased a 'new' AAR aircraft in an amazing deal which has no boom & cannot itself receive airborne refuelling, that's progress...NOT.
.... They dumped the R1 on the back of the Nimrod MR. scrapping & bought the gloriously retro Airseeker which cannot be AAR by our 'new' tanker!
.... When we had Invincible Class carriers they were not able to operate fast-jet types with Cats & Traps, but that was before we gave the Harriers away.
I think there is little value in being outright cynical in your views. You are so money supermarket .com!!

[buzzer]

All of the above ,Makes for some very entertaining reading, but can't see the relevents of it being in the culdrose section.??? Should be posted in the mess section surely??!!!

[Aircraftpaulcornwall]

Hi all,
Many thanks for the responses and the very interesting comments - we will have to wait and see how it all pans out I suppose.
Let's hope that if they do go ahead with the F-35 that it all works out all right in the end.
Buzzer - yes mate, you are correct with that - I should have posted in a different section such as the one you suggest, I shall
be more careful to post in the relevant section in the future!! --Paul

[lmgaylard]

The problem here is that you guys are over-qualified to be in Defence Procurement! Next things you will be saying is:-
.....Although the F35 is umteenth generation capable & can achieve capability with less jets, if an adversary gets a lucky shot or losing an a/c due to malfunction, that will reduce the force by a larger percentage!
.....As we will have managed without a fixed wing carrier-force for 15-20 years by the eventual in-service date, why do we need it at all?
.....That the the new Carriers without Cat's & Traps will be renamed 'Queen' & 'Prince of the Seas' respectively & leased-out to Cruise-ship companies during quiet periods (in a Voyageresque manner??)
Probably you will cite the following examples of previous crass oncompetence to support your assertions:-
.... Being an Island Nation, the entire fixed-wing aviation maritime patrol/ SAR capability was axed.
.... They leased a 'new' AAR aircraft in an amazing deal which has no boom & cannot itself receive airborne refuelling, that's progress...NOT.
.... They dumped the R1 on the back of the Nimrod MR. scrapping & bought the gloriously retro Airseeker which cannot be AAR by our 'new' tanker!
.... When we had Invincible Class carriers they were not able to operate fast-jet types with Cats & Traps, but that was before we gave the Harriers away.
I think there is little value in being outright cynical in your views. You are so money supermarket .com!!

Supra, I agree with all you have said but, although related, the points you raise are not really relevant to the question asked.

I think, and have said on other forums, that the cuts and the way they have been undertaken has been shocking! Not much thought to capability and effectiveness but solely cost and if you know where to look, you will find that most off the cuts have indeed cost us as a nation more.

As to F-35, I am one of many who is sceptical of it but am willing to not write it off just yet. I have been told that if all the systems on-board work and integrate with the weapons it WILL be the most capable aircraft in the world. However, the problems with it's airframe, thrust-to-weight and others give cause for considerable concern.
As I said above, we will wait and see.....

[Supra]

Sorry Guys! Giant thread drift from OP. thread title + forgot I was in the Culdrose section & not the Mess Back on track... it's my opinion that the F35 as ordered will never fly from either UK Carrier as ordered. Too little, too late & too expensive! (Perhaps Mod's can move this thread to the Mess with OP. blessing??)

[RichC]

Funnily, when the Invincible class carriers with Sea Harrier was active, I don't re-call people complaining about not being able to operate other fast-jet types from the deck......

Probably because the size of the deck (width and length) was not really suitable for operating any other type that any other air arm had (apart from Harrier variants). So no one really discussed it.
The US were going to do the modifications to cat/trap on the cheap and actually offered help in regards to costs and doing it purely so they could operate their aircraft off the carriers as well in times of need (which would make sense). According to the USN and Contractors the cost of the cat/trap modification was not half as much as what the MoD/Government were stating it was and so they initially offered the help (as above) to bring the cost down to their figures and make it viable. Hence they were rather disappointed at the outcome to revert back to the "B" considering they spent money and time working out the required work/costs in making the programme/fitting go ahead. And were slightly baffled on where the MoD got their figures from. The ships at that point were not even fabricated and so no re-design needed after the ships had been built, it would have been a lot easier then to redesign on paper and sort it out in the metal shed after. They had plenty of time to do that also.

It would have made sense to go with the C variant all along not only for the obvious reasons but also more ease/options for procurement of aircraft in specialised roles instead of relying on a helicopter to do everything (ASW, ASAC, SAR, CASEVAC, Humanitarian).