UK carrier policy: dumb or dumberer

[Malthus]

I just do not understand how installing "cats and traps" can cost £2.5bn per vessel 

Man, those must be some ferocious mice. 

[Neil]

The way the author keeps saying 'cat and traps', do you think they don't know that they mean catapults and arrestor wires?

At any rate, yes the JSF has been a disaster, but it's hard to have sympathy for countries that thought that it would be a good idea to participate in US military procurement.

[grumbler]

I just do not understand how installing "cats and traps" can cost £2.5bn per vessel 

In a properly designed ship, they wouldn't cost that much.  To retrofit, though? 

Think of all the steam lines you have to run from your steam generator to your catapult.  Think of all the machinery you have to displace to install the vast new water distillation plant to create the water needed to run the catapults.

I cannot imagine why anyone would think such a retrofit a good idea.  Or even a possible one, without having made space and weight reservations ahead of time.

An entire Nimitz class carrier only cost about $4 billion.  That's the same as the retrofit cost to ad catapults and arresting gear.

[grumbler]

Late-stage simulations found the cats and traps wouldn't work on the target aircraft carriers as the arrestor hook was too close to the JSF wheels so it would skid off the deck and into the briny.

Meh, the claims that the F-35C "won't work" are simply silly.

A problem was found in testing. That is the purpose of testing - to find problems. There is no reason to believe the problem is intractable.

The hook issue is fallout from this being the first stealth aircraft designed to land on a carrier. The tailhook has to be able to be covered up when not in use, and hence the design resulted in it being too close to that landing gear. They will fix it, and proceed.

The hysteria that "OMG THE CARRIER PLANE CAN NEVER LAND ON A CARRIER!" is silly.

Yeah.  Duh!  "OMG Designs have to be modified on the drawing board 111oneoneone"

[JacobL]

I just do not understand how installing "cats and traps" can cost £2.5bn per vessel 

Needing the system to also create tea jacked up the cost by 45%

[Berkut]

Late-stage simulations found the cats and traps wouldn't work on the target aircraft carriers as the arrestor hook was too close to the JSF wheels so it would skid off the deck and into the briny.

Meh, the claims that the F-35C "won't work" are simply silly.

A problem was found in testing. That is the purpose of testing - to find problems. There is no reason to believe the problem is intractable.

The hook issue is fallout from this being the first stealth aircraft designed to land on a carrier. The tailhook has to be able to be covered up when not in use, and hence the design resulted in it being too close to that landing gear. They will fix it, and proceed.

The hysteria that "OMG THE CARRIER PLANE CAN NEVER LAND ON A CARRIER!" is silly.

Yeah.  Duh!  "OMG Designs have to be modified on the drawing board 111oneoneone"

Well, I think the response of "Why the fuck didn't you people think of that BEFORE you built it!" is pretty valid.

Even the bitch that trying to make one plane do three pretty different roles was a giant mistake is pretty valid as well. Hard to imagine that it would have cost MORE to just design two planes....well, maybe not actually.

But the tone of several articles about this glitch has been one of "ZOMG THE CARRIER PLANE CANT LAND ON A CARRIER!" like this is some kind of impossible to resolve issue.

At this point I think they are still planning sea trials for next year - which would involve landing them on a carrier, so apparently they are not TOO concerned...

[Berkut]

I just do not understand how installing "cats and traps" can cost £2.5bn per vessel 

Needing the system to also create tea jacked up the cost by 45%

Well, you are creating all that steam anyway...seems kind of silly to waste it all without getting a nice brewup out of it, wot wot?

[Warspite]

Late-stage simulations found the cats and traps wouldn't work on the target aircraft carriers as the arrestor hook was too close to the JSF wheels so it would skid off the deck and into the briny.

Meh, the claims that the F-35C "won't work" are simply silly.

A problem was found in testing. That is the purpose of testing - to find problems. There is no reason to believe the problem is intractable.

The hook issue is fallout from this being the first stealth aircraft designed to land on a carrier. The tailhook has to be able to be covered up when not in use, and hence the design resulted in it being too close to that landing gear. They will fix it, and proceed.

The hysteria that "OMG THE CARRIER PLANE CAN NEVER LAND ON A CARRIER!" is silly.

My understanding is that, due to the way an arrestor landing stresses the airframe, shifting the tailhook around is neither easy nor simple.

And a solution that works for a US carrier deck size doesn't necessarily work for the QE and PoW layouts.

[mongers]

People should remember this was originally spun as a job creation scheme by the then Labour government, that it was a corporate welfare programme was an unspoken secondary reason and their value as capital ships is entirely incidental as they'll never be used in naval warfare.

I predict one will spend virtually all it's life in Portsmouth as huge museum symbol of impotence and the 2nd will never be fully completed and will probably end up as an artificial reef and diving attraction off a major seaside town.   

[Warspite]

People should remember this was originally spun as a job creation scheme by the then Labour government, that it was a corporate welfare programme was an unspoken secondary reason and their value as capital ships is entirely incidental as they'll never be used in naval warfare.

Eh? The carriers were originally "spun" as an integral part of a UK defence capability focused on expeditionary operations - back in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. They were not built to take on the Japanese in the Pacific, no, but carriers provide an extremely useful ability to have graduated escalation, from off-shore presence all the way up to full on warfighting and even humanitarian relief.

Now, the decision to build them in Scotland may have been politically motivated...

[Warspite]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British? We'd do better just catapaulting burning bundles of £50 notes at our enemies.

Trick question - the rest of Europe has given up procuring anything. :p

[Tonitrus]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

[Berkut]

Late-stage simulations found the cats and traps wouldn't work on the target aircraft carriers as the arrestor hook was too close to the JSF wheels so it would skid off the deck and into the briny.

Meh, the claims that the F-35C "won't work" are simply silly.

A problem was found in testing. That is the purpose of testing - to find problems. There is no reason to believe the problem is intractable.

The hook issue is fallout from this being the first stealth aircraft designed to land on a carrier. The tailhook has to be able to be covered up when not in use, and hence the design resulted in it being too close to that landing gear. They will fix it, and proceed.

The hysteria that "OMG THE CARRIER PLANE CAN NEVER LAND ON A CARRIER!" is silly.

My understanding is that, due to the way an arrestor landing stresses the airframe, shifting the tailhook around is neither easy nor simple.

Well, there seems to be some dispute about that - the LM guys think a re-design of the tailhook will be adequate. Of course, their spokespeople are paid to say that, I suppose.

And a solution that works for a US carrier deck size doesn't necessarily work for the QE and PoW layouts.

I don't think that is actually the case - the problem is with the aircraft, not with the deck, regardless of size.

[JacobL]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

A-10s did a good job in Stargate Atlantis.

[KRonn]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British? We'd do better just catapaulting burning bundles of £50 notes at our enemies.

That'd be a good tactic! Distract the enemy!