• FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    Give the Marines a couple to play with, sure, but ALL of them are the version with reduced fuel capacity and no tail hook? VTOL is cool but not that cool.

    • Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 days ago

      The thing to remember is that the UK doesn’t have any CATOBAR capable carriers, so the only F-35 variant they can fly from their carriers is the VTOL capable one.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I actually didn’t know that, figured we’d be sharing the electromagnetic one from the Gerald Ford. Certainly wasn’t helped by retiring the Harrier early but seems a wiser strategic move to build a better carrier than keep buying nerfed jets

        • Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          You would think, right? They actually originally planned to include CATOBAR capabilities in their new build carriers, but budget cuts due to the cost of it forced them to scrap the idea, and then the rest of the purchase decisions followed as a result.

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I believe they can still be retrofitted, right?

            Obviously that would mean extensive time in dock.

            • Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              21 hours ago

              I suppose you could but it would be both incredibly time consuming and incredibly expensive, and you’d be more likely to end up with a worse carrier than if you’d just built in those launch capabilities in the first place.

              You’d need to rip out the deck, and then retrofit it and the internals to accommodate the rail and launch system. You’d also need to reinforce the deck and remove the ski jump as the jets you’re flying will now be heavier and the jump will just get in the way of the launch system. The system itself could either be electromagnetic (like the EMALS system) but that would require several times the current energy output of a Queen Elizabeth class carrier, so would involve extensive engine upgrades. You could use steam instead, but you have a similar problem in that a whole bunch of infrastructure that you didn’t design space for now has to fit. You’d also probably have to overhaul the fueling, munitions, and maintenance facilities to accommodate the new jets. I’m sure there are other things that would have to be adapted but this is just from the top of my head.

              All told, you’d probably be spending a similar amount or more to building a new carrier in order to take one of your own carriers offline for years and at the end of it you’d be left with an incredibly expensive carrier which would likely still be subpar to something custom built for this purpose.

              TLDR: You could, but it’d involve a lot of work, a lot of money, a lot of trade offs, and would be unlikely to yield something better than if you’d just put that money into building a new carrier.

      • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Nor the Italians nor the Spanish. The UK, Italy and Spain (And the Turks, Japanese, Australians, and probably others) are SOl, because they are forced to replace their Harriers with F35s, which are the only modern VTOL/STOVL, but have the whole “The US has you by the balls” thing.

        • Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I mean, they’re not forced to, it’s just a problem that requires tradeoffs. For example, France operates the CATOBAR-capable carrier Charles de Gaulle and specifically doesn’t fly F-35, choosing instead to fly the 4th gen Rafale for the express purpose of maintaining strategic autonomy.

          Plus, unless you’re an island nation or doing expeditionary operations (i.e. the power projection game) you probably have little need for a carrier in the first place.

          If you’ll only settle for a 5th gen jet that’s carrier capable, though, yeah you’re kinda out of luck. Su-57 is hardly even a 5th gen jet in the first place, and even if the Admiral Kuznetsov wasn’t continuously catching fire in dry dock, the jet still couldn’t launch from it for a variety of design reasons. Same story with China’s J-20. China IS developing J-35 for carrier operations, though, and the jet has launched from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers in tests from what I understand, but I don’t imagine they’ll export those for a VERY long time.

      • cfi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        The Brits also added an absurd amount of pressure by retiring the Harrier early, leaving the entire Royal Navy with no carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft until the F-35Bs were delivered