Plane guard for the QE2 carriers?

[163627]

Please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed. Whilst taking a trip down memory lane and watching some DVDs of "proper" RN carrier operations, it's impossible to miss the ever present Wessex undertaking plane guard duties. This has led me to thinking what is likely to undertake this role on board the new carriers? For as I understand things already there's not really enough Merlins or Wildcats to cover present and future tasks let alone this extra one.

[Old-Duffer]

I suspect that one of two things will happen.

First, a rotary wing asset from amongst the helicopters on board will be on standby but not necessarily airborne during flying ops or second, an assessment of the risk of losing an aircraft is judged so small that the requirement has been discounted.

The third option is, of course, until you posted your query nobody had thought to address the matter!!!!!!!!!!!

Old Duffer

[Tinribs]

This set me thinking, always a bad idea, do I remember an aircraft sitting on the sea with a helo six feet above and a hairy mech bashing the canopy with a monster spanner? No use the aircraft sank and the pilot with it. I wonder how that happd. A long time ago maybe the 50's
I think the Buc had an underwater facility and maybe the Vixen too but with all electric aircraft could it happen again? I did a 360 tour and I recall the naval aviators saying the drill was to stay with it, wait for the ship to go over the top and then eject. I suppose with an angled deck the waiting would not be needed

[12in95]

Tinribs

I remember that a Scimitar suffered such an accident, but whether it's the one you remember....

12in95

[NutLoose]

The film link is here, beware it shows it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0Jj-2x5rM

Someone on here I think mentioned the helicopter was possibly a problem, as the pilot probably couldn't eject from it even if he wanted to due to the helicopter hovering overhead as he sank.

[Pontius Navigator]

From the vid it looked as if the plane guard only went on top after things became impossible.

What happened on the Invincible class?

Maybe not needed for the F35 as it is too expensive to ditch.

[NutLoose]

Did they have canopy ejection?

[RAFEngO74to09]

Nut Loose,

Full story regarding Cdr Russell's accident in the Scimitar here:

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958-1-%20-%200896.html

[Haraka]

Plane guard for the QE2 carriers?

FFS
Don't mention HAV and an Airlander derivative! :)

(On a more serious note I think we have been around the underwater ejection saga before. I remember posting reference to the Gannet "Pop-up seat" some time ago: Also Lt. Nicholas Mcfarlane (sp?.) and his escape from a Wyvern after going under the hull of the carrier- as documented in Eagle Annual 7 :don't knock it!).

[Wander00]

Tinribs -when on 360 - I was 66-69 (and the only plt off pilot in Signals Command for the first 6 months)

[Hangarshuffle]

They haven't had a rotary wing waiting off for 40 years. Why start soon? They were doing 10+ SHAR/GR recoveries 20< years ago on CVS without a helo off the quarter. They have the dedicated FRC to pick them up and that should really suffice for a single seater.
Always thought the Wessex was entirely too close and in the wrong place anyway in the olden days.

[John Eacott]

Always thought the Wessex was entirely too close and in the wrong place anyway in the olden days.

What a bizarre comment. Planeguard was also done by the Sea Kings when the Wessex was unavailable and the RN chose the position and proximity over many years of experience. Other navies had other techniques with different positions.

Launch had planeguard check the aircraft on the cat from the port side for last minute issues, impossible from anywhere on board. It was well placed to be of immediate assistance should the crew eject. Recovery would be from the port wait, again able to check from the port side any issues unable to be seen from on deck. Returning helicopters would join the port wait outboard of planeguard ready to recover.

Should planeuard be reintroduced for the new carriers then it shouldn't be too difficult to task either a Merlin from the onboard squadron or create a ship's flight for the task along with all the stuff that the CVA ship's flight used to do.

[Pontius]

F35B is just a fancy Harrier, as far as launch and recovery are concerned. No cats and no traps. A plane guard wasn't required, nor present, for the SHAR so why would it be so for the Lightning?

[Bismark]

Complete waste of helo hours.

[PhilipG]

I seem to remember being told that the RN no longer trained divers for plane guard duties....

[alfred_the_great]

I seem to remember being told that the RN no longer trained divers for plane guard duties....
And haven't done for about a decade.

[NutLoose]

I have been reading some fascinating tales of late and some things surprised me about boaty things, like pumping oil onto the sea to help stabilise and increase buoyancy of a sinking ship, and stranger still, for a ditching airliner, spraying foam onto the water to lay out a runway to assist the pilots to gauge their height and reduce the fire risk on the water!

[KenV]

Full story regarding Cdr Russell's accident in the Scimitar here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%200896.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958-1-%20-%200896.html)That article seems to just discuss the legalities associated with the release of information to the coroner on why the arrester wire failed. Not why the canopy failed to jettison and/or the seat failed to fire.

[chopper2004]

The Aeronavale been using the old Alouette III and Lynx to this day as plane guard......

cheers

[Tourist]

It's all about cost/benefit analysis.

Proper carriers doing Cat/Trap have a higher risk of bods in the water than toy carriers with hovering toys, thus worth the effort of endless hovering.

[Bollotom]

Plane guard wasn't just the helos. A warship generally accompanied the carrier and stationed astern and to one side. If there was an escort group then one of that group would be assigned as plane guard. Of course I am referring to the sixties...when we had some carriers.

[4Greens]

The ability to eject through the canopy under water was implemented after the Russell accident.

[Wander00]

and more escorts...................

[Haraka]

The ability to eject through the canopy under water was implemented after the Russell accident.
I presume this led to MDC etc.
Although implemented after the Russell accident ( which I remember vividly seeing in the newspapers as a kid), was it partially a result of that graphically reported sequence of images?
If so, then there are quite a few individuals walking around today who might otherwise not be, which might be of some small comfort to his surviving family.

[Junglydaz]

Off topic, but it makes me laugh the way the maturer (by age) generation refer to "proper" carriers. Do these fellows still have "proper" TVs with CRTs, and "proper" radios with valves? Move on, gents. Technology and capability has, why don't you? :D

[idle bystander]

... move on, gents ...Because "proper" carriers were a great deal more fun, and a great deal more capable. Unfortunately we can't afford them. Nor could we then, as it happens. Anyone who remembers how everything stopped on all the other ships when Ark (the real one, not the through-deck cruiser immitation) came in to Devonport Dockyard will realise that Denis Healey, for all his sins in believing RAF lies about the location of Australia, was probably right. The RN could not afford a proper Air Arm. It still can't.

OK, tin hat on ...

[163627]

Junglydaz you are quite correct to admonish me on that point, I should have used the term "conventional"; in that I was refering to a ship that could act as home base to a significant and balanced package of fixed wing air assets and also launch and recover if necessary the fixed wing naval aircraft of our two principle allies.

[Tourist]

Jungly

I am way too young to have flown off anything other than toy carriers, but that does not mean I don't understand what we have lost.

Proper carriers were in a different league capability wise.

The modern toys flying off them have come a long way, but to suggest that "Technology and capability" have moved on misses the point.

FA2 and SK6/7 off a toy carrier was surprisingly effective, but nobody suggests that it would have stood toe-to-toe with Nimitz

If we had the money we would have stuck with proper carriers and had greatly increased capability.

Our new semi-proper carriers should at least be a step in the right direction.

[Arclite01]

Idle

We can afford them but we choose to spend our money elsewhere. That's democracy in action - right or wrong....................discuss (Good Staff Question)

:D

Arc

[Heathrow Harry]

"referring to the sixties...when we had some carriers.."

we don't have enough ESCORTS to do plane guard these days..............

[Junglydaz]

Tourist/163627

I whole heartedly agree that we have lost capability since the CVS came into service and missed a trick with the new carriers (lack of cats and traps etc). My father served on the old Ark, Hermes, Bulwark, Eagle and we spent many an hour watching his old cine films.

However, decisions have been made and we have to move on with what we have been given and, in true RN fashion, make it great.

JD