No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We talk about this first day capability and then try to justify buying the 35 but the USA did not have much of a problem regarding Libya.
The Growler now looks like to is going to get the next generation of EW equipment which I thought was destined for the F-35B?
The Growler now looks like to is going to get the next generation of EW equipment which I thought was destined for the F-35B?
Last edited by glojo; 12th May 2012 at 12:26.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with you and my guess is we will be hiding behind anyone and everyone if we were to get involved in any conflict with a country that has modern weaponry but how good is the latest jamming technology?
The USMC always talk about close air support and will that mean the aircraft will be flown in daylight and how do they define 'close'? Is that smart weapons dropped from high altitude or is it close support that takes on the opposition that is attacking the grunts on the ground.
Looks like the French are not best pleased with this decision?
The USMC always talk about close air support and will that mean the aircraft will be flown in daylight and how do they define 'close'? Is that smart weapons dropped from high altitude or is it close support that takes on the opposition that is attacking the grunts on the ground.
Looks like the French are not best pleased with this decision?
Last edited by glojo; 12th May 2012 at 13:00.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but feel that the use of these new carriers has been misunderstood.
It strikes me that the powers that be see them not as weapon systems, but simply as a way of transporting attack aircraft to a combat zone, where they can go ashore an operate as bomb trucks / flying artillery from FOBs close up to the ground forces. Much as the original 1960's concept of using the original Harrier in Scandinavia or Germany
In which case all discussion re tanking / surveilance / AWACS becomes irrelevant as that will be provided by long-range land based assets - or by the USA...
I don't believe those carriers will ever be put in harms way - except for an initial approach to disembark their aircraft. If they were ever intended to do more they would have been provided with a transmission that provided a decent turn of speed. As it is they're not much more than oversized aircraft garages. We don't have enough maritime protection assets to defend them anyway, especially in a littoral environment, and no-one now seems to believe the F-35 (of any type) is going to be an effective air defence platform, so that if used as a "real" carrier they would be sitting ducks.
Face iit, all those carriers will be are oversized floating aircraft garages used solely as a way of moving the aircraft from point A to point B without worrying about tanking. When they get to point B, they'll be going ashore
It strikes me that the powers that be see them not as weapon systems, but simply as a way of transporting attack aircraft to a combat zone, where they can go ashore an operate as bomb trucks / flying artillery from FOBs close up to the ground forces. Much as the original 1960's concept of using the original Harrier in Scandinavia or Germany
In which case all discussion re tanking / surveilance / AWACS becomes irrelevant as that will be provided by long-range land based assets - or by the USA...
I don't believe those carriers will ever be put in harms way - except for an initial approach to disembark their aircraft. If they were ever intended to do more they would have been provided with a transmission that provided a decent turn of speed. As it is they're not much more than oversized aircraft garages. We don't have enough maritime protection assets to defend them anyway, especially in a littoral environment, and no-one now seems to believe the F-35 (of any type) is going to be an effective air defence platform, so that if used as a "real" carrier they would be sitting ducks.
Face iit, all those carriers will be are oversized floating aircraft garages used solely as a way of moving the aircraft from point A to point B without worrying about tanking. When they get to point B, they'll be going ashore
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 12th May 2012 at 14:52.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the aircraft garage, how are the necessary stores going to be taken to the onshore location? Does this require C17s? Also this model of service means that far more munitions and spares need to be purchased, one set for the Aircraft Carrier another to be deployed in theatre, I don't think so.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo
They are certainly a way of deploying all manner of assets including aircraft both rotary and fixed wing (albeit now STOVL) to anywhere needed to serve UK interests. However HMG has called for a re-establishment of our Carrier Strike capability and the events of this week confirmed that 2020 was the absolute deadline for this.
The carrier(s) are not "primarily" for Anti Submarine Warfare or another layer of Fleet Air Defence as was the case with the Invincible Class until the Sea Harrier was binned. Clearly, they can contribute to both but these are secondary roles. They will therefore train for and expect to go in harms way when required to do so by HMG and will take what they need with them as well as being re-supplied at sea.
What the USMC wants to do with their F-35B's is another issue and something many remain to be convinced about. When not operating from a carrier, how do you forward deploy a fifth generation aircraft with a stealth coating?
Anyway for the UK as well as the USMC, the F35B seems to have become the only choice for varied reasons!
They are certainly a way of deploying all manner of assets including aircraft both rotary and fixed wing (albeit now STOVL) to anywhere needed to serve UK interests. However HMG has called for a re-establishment of our Carrier Strike capability and the events of this week confirmed that 2020 was the absolute deadline for this.
The carrier(s) are not "primarily" for Anti Submarine Warfare or another layer of Fleet Air Defence as was the case with the Invincible Class until the Sea Harrier was binned. Clearly, they can contribute to both but these are secondary roles. They will therefore train for and expect to go in harms way when required to do so by HMG and will take what they need with them as well as being re-supplied at sea.
What the USMC wants to do with their F-35B's is another issue and something many remain to be convinced about. When not operating from a carrier, how do you forward deploy a fifth generation aircraft with a stealth coating?
Anyway for the UK as well as the USMC, the F35B seems to have become the only choice for varied reasons!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo,
In CAS, 'Close' refers to the close integration of air platforms with ground forces rather than a proximity issue. The integration and situational understanding is what prevents blue on blue most of the time and it is a two-way responsibility. The perfect example is a chap in Creech AFB, Nevada, consenting release of a weapon from a UAV in Helmand having built a close rapport with a controller on the ground there.
Regards,
ICBM
In CAS, 'Close' refers to the close integration of air platforms with ground forces rather than a proximity issue. The integration and situational understanding is what prevents blue on blue most of the time and it is a two-way responsibility. The perfect example is a chap in Creech AFB, Nevada, consenting release of a weapon from a UAV in Helmand having built a close rapport with a controller on the ground there.
Regards,
ICBM
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draken55
I rather expect that our politicians have a rather more flexible understanding of the meaning of the phrase "maritime strike" than you do, as indeed they have for so many other things where their understanding is at odds with the rest of the world.
Those two ships are just going to become aircraft ferries
I rather expect that our politicians have a rather more flexible understanding of the meaning of the phrase "maritime strike" than you do, as indeed they have for so many other things where their understanding is at odds with the rest of the world.
Those two ships are just going to become aircraft ferries
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exMudmover,
I think there is a huge benefit to integrating key RN personnel onboard US big decks and 'handling' aircraft on a larger scale to prepare for operating the QEC. However, that's where it stops in my opinion. The argument for maintaining conventional carrier expertise in preparation for STOVL is now tenuous to say the least; there is no requirement for regular field carrier landing practice any more which, if we were buying the F-35C, I confess would be otherwise essential.
For the RAF and RN to prepare for F-35B we should now target a few USMC exchange posts on AV-8B and/or their initial F-35Bs in exchange for some Typhoon slots for instance (oh, what would the RN 'exchange'?
) Maintaining a STOVL-experienced cadre with embarked time to transition to our UK F-35Bs more seamlessly as we form the first Squadron is of much, much more benefit and value than getting auto-launched or being an ace at trapping a 3-wire for 6 years as a Brit abroad. We're buying F-35B and for 95% of the JSF Programme that has been the case.
It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out but fixed-wing FAA isn't looking anywhere near as future-proof as it perhaps did last week when C was on the cards. Much of the public believe that the RN are the only ones with enough STOVL carrier ops flying experience and understanding and that is simply not the case. For instance, at the time of the demise of the GR9 there were more qualified and 'in-practice' RAF pilots than FAA ones. Much fuss is made of having to be dark blue to understand embarked ops and that's simply wrong - in addition, my experience is that the majority of the ship's company regularly showed a surprising level of ignorance of what projecting Air Power was all about. I'm talking 'Strike' missions (not in the Cold War sense of course) from the sea, not defending the fleet organically with a few AMRAAM and Aim-9M.
I think the error the RN have made is that they believe that two massive QEC carriers put them back in the same league as the big deck US Navy; back to the late 1970s again. The problem is they won't have the rest of the gear required to make a CVN-style CAG (AEW, Destroyers, Frigates). The best UK could hope for is to fit into a US CAG and the US protective bubble around it.
I think there is a huge benefit to integrating key RN personnel onboard US big decks and 'handling' aircraft on a larger scale to prepare for operating the QEC. However, that's where it stops in my opinion. The argument for maintaining conventional carrier expertise in preparation for STOVL is now tenuous to say the least; there is no requirement for regular field carrier landing practice any more which, if we were buying the F-35C, I confess would be otherwise essential.
For the RAF and RN to prepare for F-35B we should now target a few USMC exchange posts on AV-8B and/or their initial F-35Bs in exchange for some Typhoon slots for instance (oh, what would the RN 'exchange'?
) Maintaining a STOVL-experienced cadre with embarked time to transition to our UK F-35Bs more seamlessly as we form the first Squadron is of much, much more benefit and value than getting auto-launched or being an ace at trapping a 3-wire for 6 years as a Brit abroad. We're buying F-35B and for 95% of the JSF Programme that has been the case. It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out but fixed-wing FAA isn't looking anywhere near as future-proof as it perhaps did last week when C was on the cards. Much of the public believe that the RN are the only ones with enough STOVL carrier ops flying experience and understanding and that is simply not the case. For instance, at the time of the demise of the GR9 there were more qualified and 'in-practice' RAF pilots than FAA ones. Much fuss is made of having to be dark blue to understand embarked ops and that's simply wrong - in addition, my experience is that the majority of the ship's company regularly showed a surprising level of ignorance of what projecting Air Power was all about. I'm talking 'Strike' missions (not in the Cold War sense of course) from the sea, not defending the fleet organically with a few AMRAAM and Aim-9M.
I think the error the RN have made is that they believe that two massive QEC carriers put them back in the same league as the big deck US Navy; back to the late 1970s again. The problem is they won't have the rest of the gear required to make a CVN-style CAG (AEW, Destroyers, Frigates). The best UK could hope for is to fit into a US CAG and the US protective bubble around it.
"Gleam dazzling silver"? WTFF?
Mind you, she redeems herself further down the page: "Lothar is actually an acronym, which stands for Loser of the American Revolution".
That could be the callsign of the entire RN/FAA if the transformational (or should it be "transformer" given all the moving bits?) B gets whacked.
And I can't wait to hear the Grunt Tiffie exchange pilot coming home and telling his F-35B buddies how uber-cool it was to be pulling 6 g at Mach 1.4 and calling Fox 3 on simulated Flankers at 60 miles with Meteors from 55,000 feet supersonic...
Mind you, she redeems herself further down the page: "Lothar is actually an acronym, which stands for Loser of the American Revolution".
That could be the callsign of the entire RN/FAA if the transformational (or should it be "transformer" given all the moving bits?) B gets whacked.
And I can't wait to hear the Grunt Tiffie exchange pilot coming home and telling his F-35B buddies how uber-cool it was to be pulling 6 g at Mach 1.4 and calling Fox 3 on simulated Flankers at 60 miles with Meteors from 55,000 feet supersonic...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very wise words from ICBM
The big risk with choosing the B is that Defence ends up with the capability of the lowest common denominator. In this case it is that of the RAF whose attitude will be the "we can just hop on and hop off for the minimum amount of time". As opposed to developing the full capability incuding maritime career minded aviators.
As for RAF doing exchange tours with the USMC, if they cannot stand being on board for anything other than the minimum amount of time how will an exchange officer cope with a 9-12 month sea deployment? In addition he would be expected to be a "maritime" aviator for the rest of his flying career, including tours on the ship as an aviation officer.....somehow I do not see this happening and presumably is the reason there are no RAF F-18 exchange officers.
The RAFF need to smell the salt water and get real. Just like the mess they created with Joint Force Harrier and the refusal to believe that the Merlins would transfer to the RN, the world has changed since SDSR and embarked ops are the future. As the current SofS said " I want this carrier deployed with jets and helos aboard not stuck around the UK"
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..QEC carriers...won't have the rest of the gear required to make a CVN-style CAG (AEW, Destroyers, Frigates). The best UK could hope for is to fit into a US CAG and the US protective bubble around it.
But looking at just the AEW capability for the moment and thinking aloud, would F35B have the radar and sensors to provide AEW capability itself? Unless I dreamt it, I recall that the idea of using Harrier in this role was kicked around post Falklands campaign, although the AEW Sea King was then settled on. With F35's sensor capabilities would it now be a feasible platform instead of rotary? It could operate higher and further from the carrier. Endurance is an issue, less crew to operate sensors but data links should be good so carrier-based help should be at hand. Self defence capability. OR, are there just too many drawbacks that this is just plain barking? There must have been good reasons why Sea King came through instead of Harrier 30 years ago and these might still hold true - or not?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These Pilots are gaining far more than just being prepared for the means of taking off and landing on a carrier, they are gaining huge experience in Maritime Strike Ops in a completely multirole 4.5 generation fighter that is deployed on operations around the world. This is the experience which is of relevance to the F35B in the future, more so than anything else we can do at this time.
Going on exchange with the USMC is almost irrelevant, as we keep being told the F35B is going to be so easy to fly even a Tornado pilot could do it. Equally the USMC are not in the carrier business for the same reasons so we are going to learn far more from the USN.
Pathetic.
Going on exchange with the USMC is almost irrelevant, as we keep being told the F35B is going to be so easy to fly even a Tornado pilot could do it. Equally the USMC are not in the carrier business for the same reasons so we are going to learn far more from the USN.
at the time of the demise of the GR9 there were more qualified and 'in-practice' RAF pilots than FAA ones.
Last edited by Justanopinion; 13th May 2012 at 15:01.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark
Sorry to rise to the bait on a sunny afternoon, but I had to comment on this. Whatever the issues with JFH back in the day, the reality is that the (very small) FJ frontline in 2020 means that the Dave-B STOVL girls and boys will be the deep-strike role is theirs - and theirs alone. The question will be where will the training and ops be, and - just like JFH in Afghanistan - if the need is for JFD (Joint Force Dave) to go off and operate from land bases, then it will do so. If there's time, then JFD will spend more time on CVF.
What won't happen (because the number of aircraft is too small) is that JFD will spend lots of time afloat for as long as it's joint. There are too many useful things that will simply work better from a land base or against land ranges (Spade etc) - do we really think that CVF will spend 3 months at a time training in home waters with an embarked air group?
In principle, I'm a big fan of big deck "Carrier Enabled Power Projection" (in the current yuck-speak). But CEPP is a holistic concept, involving everything that is required to project power from carriers - sea-borne tankers, frigates, destroyers and submarines to protect the carrier, on board C3, a combination of on-board and off-board ISTAR - much more than the carrier and the jets.
So CEPP as a concept is much closer to the USN CVN Carrier Battle Group than to the USMC MEU - though naturally we're doing it on a shoestring, as ever. But the focus is on buying the kit, and building and then integrating these skills; which will need lots of time afloat with the jets, yes, but it will also require a great deal of equipment and capability that needs cats 'n' traps.... like E-2s, C-2s, AAR.
Worse, in going STOVL, the RN can't make the case for the jets and the squadrons to be spending lots of time afloat doing carrier landing practice getting this maritimeness thingy - as well as losing the things you need to make CEPP actually work.
I'd despair, but I've already done that.
S41
The RAFF need to smell the salt water and get real. Just like the mess they created with Joint Force Harrier and the refusal to believe that the Merlins would transfer to the RN, the world has changed since SDSR and embarked ops are the future.
What won't happen (because the number of aircraft is too small) is that JFD will spend lots of time afloat for as long as it's joint. There are too many useful things that will simply work better from a land base or against land ranges (Spade etc) - do we really think that CVF will spend 3 months at a time training in home waters with an embarked air group?
In principle, I'm a big fan of big deck "Carrier Enabled Power Projection" (in the current yuck-speak). But CEPP is a holistic concept, involving everything that is required to project power from carriers - sea-borne tankers, frigates, destroyers and submarines to protect the carrier, on board C3, a combination of on-board and off-board ISTAR - much more than the carrier and the jets.
So CEPP as a concept is much closer to the USN CVN Carrier Battle Group than to the USMC MEU - though naturally we're doing it on a shoestring, as ever. But the focus is on buying the kit, and building and then integrating these skills; which will need lots of time afloat with the jets, yes, but it will also require a great deal of equipment and capability that needs cats 'n' traps.... like E-2s, C-2s, AAR.
Worse, in going STOVL, the RN can't make the case for the jets and the squadrons to be spending lots of time afloat doing carrier landing practice getting this maritimeness thingy - as well as losing the things you need to make CEPP actually work.
I'd despair, but I've already done that.
S41
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power projection?
So let me get this right, UK plc has taken a decision to invest about £5 billion on two of the world’s largest (outside the USN) and potentially most potent warships each with a crew of 600+, but according to many of those writing on this forum instead of patrolling and cruising the world’s oceans with a potent air wing they will spend most of their operational service just carrying a few helicopters, whilst the aircraft that gives them their capability operate as a Tornado replacement for the RAF in the UK? Is this really an efficient and effective use of our investment? I fully accept that the UK will probably end up with only 60-100 F-35s but should they not be prioritised to where they may be of greatest deterrent and power projecting value? In my view that is travelling the world on board a carrier, not sitting snug on a UK airfield. After all a large carrier by definition is a mobile UK airfield and will be just as capable of projecting power for UK plc as any foreign base, more so in fact. Perhaps we could reduce the pain by reintroducing the "Fleet Air Arm branch of the RAF" to be staffed only by those in light blue who are happy to spend a significant part of their service afloat; a life that I fully accept is not everyone's cup of tea.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do we really think that CVF will spend 3 months at a time training in home waters with an embarked air group?
There are too many useful things that will simply work better from a land base or against land ranges (Spade etc)
This platform has not been purchased for the benefit of the RAF, it has been purchased for UK defence.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just,
I get all of that. But I'd be really surprised if the carrier + air group are out for extended periods in home waters. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and I think that it does make sense to have FAA specific squadrons, but with the numbers of Daves it's most unlikely. Ideally, there would be c 120 for Tornado GR replacement (8 sqns + OCU) and about 80 for the FAA - all Dave-Cs. But that's not where we are, or are likely to be.
S41
I get all of that. But I'd be really surprised if the carrier + air group are out for extended periods in home waters. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and I think that it does make sense to have FAA specific squadrons, but with the numbers of Daves it's most unlikely. Ideally, there would be c 120 for Tornado GR replacement (8 sqns + OCU) and about 80 for the FAA - all Dave-Cs. But that's not where we are, or are likely to be.
S41
