Well.  Taken at face value, this is a good, common-sense decision.  It allows them to operate the far more capable model of the F-35, allows them to have real AEW in the form of Hawkeyes, and ability to have French and U.S. aircraft do cross-deck operations. 

 

It will cost them more, both in terms of redesigning the carrier and in terms of ongoing operational costs -- CATOBAR carrier operations require constant training, unlike STOVL which is comparatively easier.  But the added capability is worth it.

 

Of course, this is also a hedge against the JSF failing completely, since they will now have other options for a credible naval strike fighter.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Queen Elizabeth operating a couple of squadrons of Hornet FGR.1s in place of JSFs.

Well it will probably cause the demise of the second carrier.  The CVF program is already deep into cost overruns, and the cost of the design modifications and added equipment won't help a bit.  Adding catapults is not a trivial change.  I wonder if they'll try to go with EMALS rather than steam.

 

Another side effect is that this may well doom the USMC purchase of the F-35B, since their cost is going to rise sharply as a result.

I would guess that EMALS is not practical for a conventionally powered carrier. The energy requirements are enormous, involving generators, energy storage, power conversion, and a 100,000 hp electric motor.

 

You really need a nuclear power plant to make this economic.

 To get that done properly, you'd be looking for a total redesign of the deck from a through deck to an angle deck layout to allow simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft, so that's going to be a corker of a change.

 

There's time to do it as it's understood that the 35B is already slipping two years so if it can be done, then it'd be a Good Thing. We might well end up flying SHornets instead, but I can't see that as being a total disaster.

 

I have mixed feelings, put it that way but if it gets us a working carrier capable of taking a cat launch with an arrested landing, that's a game we can get back into. The USN have already been very generous with helping us cross train personnel on their carriers. It might work is all I'm saying.

 

Ian

 

 

The deck is already configured to accommodate an angled deck layout:

 

 

Eliminating the ski ramp and adding arrester gear is comparatively simple; the hard part will be adding the catapults and the attendant steam piping.

IF what was posted below in the thread is true...THERE CAN'T BE STEAM PIPING.  The CVF is turbine powered...there is no steam plant, for propulsion.  And there is NO ROOM for the installation of a dedicated steam plant for launch operations.  Making EMALS, or it's British/European, equivalent the only option for catapult operations.  And EMALS is in serious trouble, technically.

 

Bottom-line: without F-35B there may be no CVF, because F-35C will require a system that doesn't yet exist...making the whole CVF project pointless, no air group, because nothing to launch or launch with, and then there's no need for an aircraft carrier.

No.It was a common UK French design and the French derivative version has a dedicated steam plant for catapult.They just have to base their design on the French blueprints.

However maybe British will go EMALS.

 

That is incorrect. The CVFs were designed from the start to be upgradeable to CATOBAR should the need arise.  You are correct however in that they will require a separate steam plant since the IFEP propulsion cannot supply steam.  But the CVF design has always included room for this.

well, the basic design work to handle all of that has been tackled under the PA2 project as the French were/are intending to launch and recover Rafales so I doubt it's insurmountable and of course, the PA2 may well be what we end up building for ourselves at this rate.

 

Ian