Serious question
How much more would a catobar cost if they originally went with it, and how much savings from buying the C variant over the B would make up?
Uh, the F-35C is the most expensive variant
https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost
>>30111773
I think they were quoted over 2billion, due to EMALs still being way behind schedule and not ready.
The official line is
"So much it would mean we could have only bought one ship"
With steam catapults comes a larger power requirement, a more costly power generator and more staff need to maintain such a system.
There are no savings to be made by purchasing the F-35C either. A carrier wing of 36 F-35Bs will end up being 3.7 billion vs 4.1 billion for 36 F-35Cs.
>>30111822
The question then becomes lifetime costs between the two airframes as the b will obviously require more maintenance
>>30111881
I doubt it, the C variant is going to be under the most stresses over its lifetime.
>>30111887
Historically, jump jets require vastly more maintenance. When the Tomcat was around, it was a hangar queen, but it never came close to the harrier for example
>>30111881
The B will not be subject to the extreme forces of cats and traps, something that continually stresses the engines, chassis and gear. The Bs operate independently and will cost less.
>>30111931
Historic cost per hour for the AV-8B is 19k per hour. F/A-18C is 24k per hour.
>>30111881
Fuck, if only I wasn't posting from moblie.
NAO (the british GAO) ruled that in the long term B.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=NAO+carrier+strike&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=VTRMV9WmBuXW8gfdrrKIAQ
>>30111773
The real issue wasn't the actual conversion. While the conversion IS expensive, it wasn't prohibitably expensive.
The issue, was that Labour, being the unredeemable fuckwits they are, signed a contract for the carriers that meant that ANY change to the schedule or design would constitute a breach of the contract entirely and induce penalty payments in the billions of pounds. Labour then delayed the project by a year for no reason other than to try and make the project go overbudget by a billion pounds (Seriously!) because they knew they weren't winning the next election and wanted to leave the Tories with an overbudget program, until then it had been UNDER budget.
As such, to convert even one of them would have literally doubled the price of one of the carriers, because it meant changing design mid construction.
The ships can already do catobar, if fitted with it. In the future, it could be done much cheaper once the contract for delivery has finished. The second of the carriers is now 9 months ahead of schedule, the ACA are saving fucktons of money because they are simply some of the best ship constructors around. So the future is fairly bright.
>>30112120
>The second of the carriers is now 9 months ahead of schedule
When the fuck is a military construction contract ever ahead of schedule?
>>30111773
A FUCKING RAMP
>>30112129
I thinnk the Burke's and some of the US attack subs are ahead and under budget these days, due to massive streamlining and experience at this point. But then again, you have the LCS and F-35, so any winning is instantly lost
>>30112486
>This meme again
>>30112658
>projection: the screencap
>>30112658
>Someone shitposts
>Post an equal amount of shitposting in response.
Just ignore them rather than acting like a fucktard in response.
>>30112658
>Ramp
>Being the same as catobar
>Believing the RN will ever be anything besides the US Navy Auxiliary at this point
Enjoy your helicopter based AWACS
>>30112658
Utter cringe.
>>30112729
I'd take 30 rotary AWACS over one (1) fixed wing AWAC compared to CdG, I'm sure anyone would.
>>30112765
>I'd take 30 rotary AWACS
Yeah, because they're going to
A) fill the ship with Merlins
B) use the entire Merlin fleet for AWACS duty
C) buy enough crowsnest to fit to 30 Merlins
get out
>>30112793
Didn't claim any of this.
But those 30 will be in the AWAC pool, compared to CdGs pool of 3.
>>30112821
>But those 30 will be in the AWAC pool, compared to CdGs pool of 3.
What the fuck are you talking about
>>30112949
He's being a bit vague, but I believe what he's referring to is that there will be an available pool of 30 Merlins for the carriers/escorts to use that aren't assigned to other roles semi-permentantly, since any of those Merlins can accept the Crowsnest kit as a modular addition, it can be moved between helos very quickly.
While France only has 3 Hawkeyes, only 2 of which go on board at most. They suffer from fleet availability much more than the Merlins will, as the AEW kit can just be shifted to another airframe between flights.
As a result, it's easier to guarentee coverage of many flights, while France normally will only have a single one in the air at any given point. One loss or mechanical problem to even one of them means that they'll have regular periods of no AEW at all. And god help them if the CdG isn't available, as then they have no AEW period for their entire fleet. A Merlin could, even if both carriers aren't present, deploy from any ship.
It's a sensible choice for the size of fleet those two countries have, far less risky. For example, CdG is going to disappear for two years soon as it's refuelled and refitted. In that timeframe, France will have precisely jack shit for AEW. It's a perfect example of why for navies with only 1-2 carriers need to be very pragmatic about their AEW choices, compared to the US which has the strength of numbers to ALWAYS have AEW on whatever platform.
>>30113112
You would have to have those Merlins aboard anyway to accept the 'kit', and honestly it doesn't seem like something you would be able to just hotswap.
Certainly not something you can be certain will take longer than fixing a Hawkeye.
Furthermore, if your argument is that you can just swap it over, why not just bring an additional hawkeye? Nothing to do with the carrier itself, just its airwing composition. It would take away from Rafales, but so would carrying additional Merlins.
The fact that there are only one CdG is an issue though, sure.
>>30112658
>Implying the Ford didn't pioneer new technology in its design
>Implying that putting a Nuclear fucking Reactor on a ship is cheap
>Implying 9 decks below the flightdeck is better than or equal to 25
>Implying that a speed of 25 knots is better than or equal to a speed of 35 knots
>Implying an aircraft compliment of 40 is better than or equal to one of >75
>Implying a range of 10,000 nautical miles is better than or equal to an infinite range that lasts for upwards of 25 years
>Implying the Queen Elizabeth is anything compared to the Ford
>Implying that a navy with 77 ships and 174 aircraft is somehow even comparable to one with 430 ships and 3,700+ aircraft
Sorry, but Englandistan is a
>CuckLORD
when it comes to Sea Power
>>30113167
>You would have to have those Merlins aboard anyway to accept the 'kit', and honestly it doesn't seem like something you would be able to just hotswap.
You'd also have to have the Hawkeyes aboard to use, it goes for both. Difference is the Merlins are carried in vast numbers by numerous ships in the carrier group. The QE can carry around 10 of them alone on top of 36 fighters.
>Certainly not something you can be certain will take longer than fixing a Hawkeye.
That's incredibly subjective, what constitutes a problem could be small, or it could be completely out of action. Point is, one loss, failure or inability to undertake missions puts a severe strain on the deployed fleet.
>Furthermore, if your argument is that you can just swap it over, why not just bring an additional hawkeye?
Because CdG is not a huge carrier. Its maximum wing is only around 23 Rafales (Because the 40 aircraft number was based on the much smaller Super Etendards), 2 Hawkeyes and a small group of helos for SAR. If you want to bring the third (which is normally based in France for training/replacing whichever one needs brought back/used for land based AEW as France only has four other E-3s) then you gotta drop something else on an already numerically strained carrier.
> It would take away from Rafales, but so would carrying additional Merlins.
36 F-35s and 10-14 Merlins is not going to struggle for numbers, especially as every frigate/destroyer in the carrier group also carries 1-2 of them, and the Tide Class can carry a good 3-4.
>>30113167
>You would have to have those Merlins aboard anyway to accept the 'kit', and honestly it doesn't seem like something you would be able to just hotswap.
But there will be Merlins onboard...? What gives you the idea that the navy's med-weight multi-role helicopter wouldn't be?
>Five HM2s are in maintenance at any one time, leaving 25 available at readiness, of which 14 will be assigned to the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier.
Crowsnest is designed to be swappable between the fleet, literal plug-in-play.
>Certainly not something you can be certain will take longer than fixing a Hawkeye.
You don't know that.
>Furthermore, if your argument is that you can just swap it over, why not just bring an additional hawkeye? Nothing to do with the carrier itself, just its airwing composition. It would take away from Rafales, but so would carrying additional Merlins.
What do you mean? And how is a hawkeye in deep maintenance supposed to fly?
>>30113258
>dumbshit
>you
>>30113258
Christ you just walked right into that
America spends close to 1 billion dollars for one carriers worth of EMALS
It ain't cheap
>>30113258
Hook line and sinker
Americans are bad at this
>>30113364
If you have to pay that instead of 50 years of spare parts for various aircraft because of stresses from the uneven acceleration of a steam catapult, it's worth it.
>>30113285
My argument's been disproven, Welp, gotta call someone a dumbshit.
>>30113285
>>30113289
>>30113486
>Being this stupid
>>30113515
What do you expect from britcucks?
That's their only response.
>>30112129
If the last government bloats the contract on purpose.
>>30113258
>MAYMAY ARROW CuckLORD
Ha!!!!! GREAT MEME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wish I was cool enough to go to /pol/ and shitpost in a containment board with you senpai
