Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it seems that the "plan" is now aircraft to embark the PP's onboard asap and the RAF not to get a look in.
Outstandingly played RN
Hmm wonder what "organic" AD assets the UK has around the South China sea region?
Oh you mean we have to rely on other nations assets to defend our "target"? righty ho !
#Heavier than a Strike Eagle crazy, crazy.
Outstandingly played RN
Hmm wonder what "organic" AD assets the UK has around the South China sea region?
Oh you mean we have to rely on other nations assets to defend our "target"? righty ho !
#Heavier than a Strike Eagle crazy, crazy.
Last edited by glad rag; 14th Jan 2017 at 14:14. Reason: fingers....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag,
Catch up sunshine. If you think UK is going to the South China Sea as anything other than part of a large US-led operation, you need to stick to fixing aircraft and leave the analysis to the smarter folk.
I mean....really!
Catch up sunshine. If you think UK is going to the South China Sea as anything other than part of a large US-led operation, you need to stick to fixing aircraft and leave the analysis to the smarter folk.
I mean....really!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS,
Perhaps I can help here (perhaps not....)
The F-35B is certainly designed as a 'strike' aircraft - but it's a 'strike fighter', and is certainly capable of carrying out AD (or CDA?) if called upon. With 20 aircraft embarked, they certainly could do both at the same time, if required. By the way, I'm calling on experience of much smaller ships with much smaller decks and smaller complements of aircraft. However, I do recognise that whatever 'maritime aviation' ends up looking like on QEC, it won't be anything like it was before.
The central issue here appears to me to be who exactly will decide what the aircraft do when they are embarked. How would the JFACC/ATO construct work with a QEC carrier in a fleet that may be required to change its location, speed or course as local circumstances require? Who would make the call to send every aircraft on board on a strike mission and leave nothing on board for DCA? Would a DCA tasking require aircraft constantly in the air, or on some form of 'alert'? How many aircraft would an 'alert' DCA task require? Just how would a QEC carrier generate a strike package? How big would that strike package be? What would be the expected launch and recovery rates? How long would a QEC be required to maintain these rates?
Now, I don't know the answers to these questions. Nor should I. I'd hazard a guess that there are all sorts of planning assumptions going around to scope them out. All I know is the war you end up fighting is almost never the one you expected to fight. Planning assumptions never survive the first few months of any war. Air operations are no exception.
So, I sincerely hope that whoever eventually runs the 'air' show off the QECs, they have the following tools in their kitbag:
Aircraft and aircrew able to carry out as wide a range of tasks as possible
Command and control arrangements that can recognise and react to rapidly changing circumstances without referral back to a 'central' command.
A concept of air operations that exploits the ability of the carrier to manoeuvre, as well as sustaining high tempo air operations.
Best regards as ever to all those rebuilding UK fixed wing naval aviation...
Engines
Perhaps I can help here (perhaps not....)
The F-35B is certainly designed as a 'strike' aircraft - but it's a 'strike fighter', and is certainly capable of carrying out AD (or CDA?) if called upon. With 20 aircraft embarked, they certainly could do both at the same time, if required. By the way, I'm calling on experience of much smaller ships with much smaller decks and smaller complements of aircraft. However, I do recognise that whatever 'maritime aviation' ends up looking like on QEC, it won't be anything like it was before.
The central issue here appears to me to be who exactly will decide what the aircraft do when they are embarked. How would the JFACC/ATO construct work with a QEC carrier in a fleet that may be required to change its location, speed or course as local circumstances require? Who would make the call to send every aircraft on board on a strike mission and leave nothing on board for DCA? Would a DCA tasking require aircraft constantly in the air, or on some form of 'alert'? How many aircraft would an 'alert' DCA task require? Just how would a QEC carrier generate a strike package? How big would that strike package be? What would be the expected launch and recovery rates? How long would a QEC be required to maintain these rates?
Now, I don't know the answers to these questions. Nor should I. I'd hazard a guess that there are all sorts of planning assumptions going around to scope them out. All I know is the war you end up fighting is almost never the one you expected to fight. Planning assumptions never survive the first few months of any war. Air operations are no exception.
So, I sincerely hope that whoever eventually runs the 'air' show off the QECs, they have the following tools in their kitbag:
Aircraft and aircrew able to carry out as wide a range of tasks as possible
Command and control arrangements that can recognise and react to rapidly changing circumstances without referral back to a 'central' command.
A concept of air operations that exploits the ability of the carrier to manoeuvre, as well as sustaining high tempo air operations.
Best regards as ever to all those rebuilding UK fixed wing naval aviation...
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All depends who we're fighting I guess
it's unlikely we will be able to afford to have them constantly at sea on stand-by waiting for something to happen - much more likely it'll be a Libya/Gulf War type operation .
We'll know who our allies are, what they are providing , what fixed base air cover there is and the threat level. Given the last 25 years of operations air cover is going to be minimum and strike capability much more important - probably only another Falklands War would see us requiring the opposite balance of capability
it's unlikely we will be able to afford to have them constantly at sea on stand-by waiting for something to happen - much more likely it'll be a Libya/Gulf War type operation .
We'll know who our allies are, what they are providing , what fixed base air cover there is and the threat level. Given the last 25 years of operations air cover is going to be minimum and strike capability much more important - probably only another Falklands War would see us requiring the opposite balance of capability
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by atg
Well, therein lies an inherent tension between the RN and RAF. STRIKE will obviously be conducted, but DCA must be the primary purpose, if only because you can't STRIKE if your airfield is sinking.
Surely the presence of a carrier in a maritime task force adds long range weapons and sensors, in much the same way other ships add specific capabilities. Some people seem to forget other things (amphibious forces, ships/helicopters doing ASW, mines countermeasures forces, key logistic ships) also need air defence.
Strike alone will not win the war. As for the idea of relying on ship based anti air capabilities when carrier aircraft are available - WTF?
Originally Posted by HH
We'll know who our allies are, what they are providing , what fixed base air cover there is and the threat level. Given the last 25 years of operations air cover is going to be minimum and strike capability much more important - probably only another Falklands War would see us requiring the opposite balance of capability
glad rag Are you willing to elaborate on your assertion that QEC lacks self defence? What do you think they should have?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Jan 2017 at 17:28.
Regarding self-defence I think he is referring to the absence of any fitted to them aside from CIWS. First time this absence-of-defence has been tried on a major warship so everyone is wondering how it will all work out.
Refuelling
Surely the biggest flaw in the defence of the QE Class is the limited radius-of-action of the 35-Bs combined with the lack of any Air-to-Air refuelling capability?
The need to be so close to potential targets acts as a nice force multiplyer for any 'peer' adversary.
And of course the lack of catapults really limits any potential options.
KB
The need to be so close to potential targets acts as a nice force multiplyer for any 'peer' adversary.
And of course the lack of catapults really limits any potential options.
KB
Even the USN depend on land-based AAR to project strike packages so it will be no different for the F-35B/QE.
Using the QE class for amphib / littoral / helicopter carry will present the biggest challenge range vs threat conundrum. Nobody has ever used a such a large ship in this role, or one with such reliance on others for self-defence.
The mantra (admittedly flawed) with the QE class was 'steel is cheap, air is free... but weapons are expensive'.
https://youtu.be/ATHhsrH16VQ
Using the QE class for amphib / littoral / helicopter carry will present the biggest challenge range vs threat conundrum. Nobody has ever used a such a large ship in this role, or one with such reliance on others for self-defence.
The mantra (admittedly flawed) with the QE class was 'steel is cheap, air is free... but weapons are expensive'.
https://youtu.be/ATHhsrH16VQ
Last edited by Just This Once...; 18th Jan 2017 at 09:35.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A Year Late, UK Receives First Carrier-Support Ship
LONDON - The first of four British military tankers being built in South Korea to support operation of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier force has finally been handed over to the Ministry of Defence, twelve months later than expected. “Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring was accepted off contract earlier this month and is due to arrive in the UK in 2017 for customisation and capability assessment trials before entering service,” an MoD spokesman confirmed to Defense News Jan 17.
RFA Tidespring should have been accepted off contract last January but has been delayed while technical issues have been resolved by the builders, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME). “Some technical issues were discovered following RFA Tidespring’s sea trials, and alongside this, new regulations around cable insulation required adjustments to the build schedule. These issues were fully resolved prior to acceptance,” said the spokesman.
The 37,000 tonne tanker was due to have been in service with the RFA, the logistics and operational support arm for the Royal Navy, last September to start replacing single-hulled ships that no longer meet international standards. Under the original time frame three of the four ships should have been handed over to the British by now with the final tanker scheduled to be accepted this April. Despite the problems, the spokesman said all four ships are “expected to be in service by the end of 2018, consistent with the original intent.” The spokesman said the firm-price nature of the contract meant the delays had not resulted in any additional cost to the MoD.
The ships are the first element of an overdue modernization of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary meant in part to support the introduction of the Royal Navy’s new 70,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The first of two carriers is due to start sea trials in the next few months. Britain ordered four tankers from DSME in 2012 in a $597 million deal that sparked controversy here over the MoD’s decision to put the program out to international competition, rather than reserving the work for local yards. None of the British yards submitted a bid.
On its arrival in the UK the tanker will be delivered to the A&P yard at Falmouth, western England, for customization work involving the fitting of sensitive equipment like self-defense weapons, ballistic protection and communications systems. The first tanker is likely to enter service toward the end of the year. In a statement issued at the start of the month on upcoming developments for the Royal Navy in 2017 Defense Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said Tidespring would “arrive from South Korea in the spring.”
Designed by Britain’s BMT Defence Services, the new tankers are equipped with a helicopter flight deck and hangar. Besides ship and aviation fuel, they are designed to hold ammunition and solid stores.
The handover of the first tanker will ease embarrassment in the MoD over the delays by a foreign contractor just at the time the British start to gear up for a competition to build three fleet-support ships capable of delivering munitions and stores to the carrier task force. An MoD spokesman said that the new requirement will also be put out to international bids.
“We plan to procure three Fleet Solid Support Ships, as announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2015, through open competition among UK and international bidders. The programme is currently in its assessment phase, and we anticipate that the MoD will be in a position to award the contract by 2020,” the spokesman said. "The current planning assumption is that ships [will enter service] from the mid-2020s . . . to replace aging Fort-class vessels,” he added.
LONDON - The first of four British military tankers being built in South Korea to support operation of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier force has finally been handed over to the Ministry of Defence, twelve months later than expected. “Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring was accepted off contract earlier this month and is due to arrive in the UK in 2017 for customisation and capability assessment trials before entering service,” an MoD spokesman confirmed to Defense News Jan 17.
RFA Tidespring should have been accepted off contract last January but has been delayed while technical issues have been resolved by the builders, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME). “Some technical issues were discovered following RFA Tidespring’s sea trials, and alongside this, new regulations around cable insulation required adjustments to the build schedule. These issues were fully resolved prior to acceptance,” said the spokesman.
The 37,000 tonne tanker was due to have been in service with the RFA, the logistics and operational support arm for the Royal Navy, last September to start replacing single-hulled ships that no longer meet international standards. Under the original time frame three of the four ships should have been handed over to the British by now with the final tanker scheduled to be accepted this April. Despite the problems, the spokesman said all four ships are “expected to be in service by the end of 2018, consistent with the original intent.” The spokesman said the firm-price nature of the contract meant the delays had not resulted in any additional cost to the MoD.
The ships are the first element of an overdue modernization of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary meant in part to support the introduction of the Royal Navy’s new 70,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The first of two carriers is due to start sea trials in the next few months. Britain ordered four tankers from DSME in 2012 in a $597 million deal that sparked controversy here over the MoD’s decision to put the program out to international competition, rather than reserving the work for local yards. None of the British yards submitted a bid.
On its arrival in the UK the tanker will be delivered to the A&P yard at Falmouth, western England, for customization work involving the fitting of sensitive equipment like self-defense weapons, ballistic protection and communications systems. The first tanker is likely to enter service toward the end of the year. In a statement issued at the start of the month on upcoming developments for the Royal Navy in 2017 Defense Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said Tidespring would “arrive from South Korea in the spring.”
Designed by Britain’s BMT Defence Services, the new tankers are equipped with a helicopter flight deck and hangar. Besides ship and aviation fuel, they are designed to hold ammunition and solid stores.
The handover of the first tanker will ease embarrassment in the MoD over the delays by a foreign contractor just at the time the British start to gear up for a competition to build three fleet-support ships capable of delivering munitions and stores to the carrier task force. An MoD spokesman said that the new requirement will also be put out to international bids.
“We plan to procure three Fleet Solid Support Ships, as announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2015, through open competition among UK and international bidders. The programme is currently in its assessment phase, and we anticipate that the MoD will be in a position to award the contract by 2020,” the spokesman said. "The current planning assumption is that ships [will enter service] from the mid-2020s . . . to replace aging Fort-class vessels,” he added.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, I'm beginning to think you really don't understand this. What I said (and please look back through it) was, if QE is alone with its few escort ships and maybe a Sub, then it will have an AD screen provided by T45, supplemented with F-35. To provide 24/7 DCA cover organically with F-35 takes more aircraft than you and many others appreciate. Way, way more. The USN can do it because they have 70+ ac on board - we never will have anywhere near that number. So, if the Captain wants 24/7 F-35 overhead in the AOR covering his/her own carrier, there will be no strike going on. That's fine if you're transiting in and out of the Theatre, but if you're there with a job to do, it ain't fine. This is where the analysis implies we have to be part of a larger coalition warfighting fleet (US, UK or Fr led) where AD is provided by a combination of a few QE's F-35 but also by CVN, CdG and, because we're likely to be in range of land based AD air assets, various F-type jets.
The capability that's been bought is for Carrier Enabled Power Projection. The Carrier gets the jets, rotary and Marines to the fight and sustains them, accepting that in today's age, with the relatively few F-35 bought, you cannot do all of this alone in a near peer environment. The weapons are there to project power where it matters, to meet the JTFC's aims and objectives. If you spend all your organic assets flying hours being parochial - and not accepting other fighter cover AD - the question 'what are you actually doing of use then?' quickly hoves into view.
The capability that's been bought is for Carrier Enabled Power Projection. The Carrier gets the jets, rotary and Marines to the fight and sustains them, accepting that in today's age, with the relatively few F-35 bought, you cannot do all of this alone in a near peer environment. The weapons are there to project power where it matters, to meet the JTFC's aims and objectives. If you spend all your organic assets flying hours being parochial - and not accepting other fighter cover AD - the question 'what are you actually doing of use then?' quickly hoves into view.
Thread Starter
MSOCS
Can you accept that scenarios might occur where ground attack is not the only thing needed - perhaps not even the primary thing? What if you need to support other activities?
I said Some people seem to forget other things (amphibious forces, ships/helicopters doing ASW, mines countermeasures forces, key logistic ships) also need air defence.
You seem to have ignored that, and said So, if the Captain wants 24/7 F-35 overhead in the AOR covering his/her own carrier, there will be no strike going on. That's fine if you're transiting in and out of the Theatre, but if you're there with a job to do, it ain't fine.
So what if the Joint Forces' job includes things like clearing mines, conducting ASW operations, putting troops ashore etc - and the bad guys actually do have a navy and an air force?
Can you accept that scenarios might occur where ground attack is not the only thing needed - perhaps not even the primary thing? What if you need to support other activities?
I said Some people seem to forget other things (amphibious forces, ships/helicopters doing ASW, mines countermeasures forces, key logistic ships) also need air defence.
You seem to have ignored that, and said So, if the Captain wants 24/7 F-35 overhead in the AOR covering his/her own carrier, there will be no strike going on. That's fine if you're transiting in and out of the Theatre, but if you're there with a job to do, it ain't fine.
So what if the Joint Forces' job includes things like clearing mines, conducting ASW operations, putting troops ashore etc - and the bad guys actually do have a navy and an air force?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, what I am saying (and I assure you I'm not conveniently ignoring), is that yes on a particular day Strike won't be the primary mission but even so, the quantity of ac may not be sufficient to do it alone. Therefore, if the QE is acting as the air base for assets conducting ASW, etc, then it will have to be in conjunction with other AD assets: T45 and probably other carrier-based air and/or land-based air.
People seem to forget that this aircraft has some great all-mission capabilities but some amazing niche ones as well. Those niche capabilities are going to drive the JTFC to pull them for his Strike plan and, quid pro quo, apportion other (less-niche) AD air (F-15/16/18/Ty/Rafale) to provide the required screen for QE and other ships/helo/amphibious doing their business. Now, if the mission is entirely minesweeping, that's different but also unlikely. If the mission is entirely about Amphib, I agree totally with you, but getting Marines ashore against a near peer enemy will require a LOT of battle space shaping BEFORE any air can get near the coast.
The thing to bear in mind is ensuring flexibility but please remember: in the Joint fight, the Theatre Air Defence Plan is entirely CFACC's call, not the ship's skipper's, whose concerns will undoubtedly be made clear to him via the MOC to CFMCC. The only time you really need to be a self-licking lollipop is when you're alone and unafraid AND in range of the enemy ("who has a Navy and an Air Force..."), which should never happen. If you're underway/en-route 1000nm from the AOR, the jets probably can't reach targets anyway so yeah, skipper asks CAOC or other agreed C2 agency to assign assets to Air Defence or training sorties.
People seem to forget that this aircraft has some great all-mission capabilities but some amazing niche ones as well. Those niche capabilities are going to drive the JTFC to pull them for his Strike plan and, quid pro quo, apportion other (less-niche) AD air (F-15/16/18/Ty/Rafale) to provide the required screen for QE and other ships/helo/amphibious doing their business. Now, if the mission is entirely minesweeping, that's different but also unlikely. If the mission is entirely about Amphib, I agree totally with you, but getting Marines ashore against a near peer enemy will require a LOT of battle space shaping BEFORE any air can get near the coast.
The thing to bear in mind is ensuring flexibility but please remember: in the Joint fight, the Theatre Air Defence Plan is entirely CFACC's call, not the ship's skipper's, whose concerns will undoubtedly be made clear to him via the MOC to CFMCC. The only time you really need to be a self-licking lollipop is when you're alone and unafraid AND in range of the enemy ("who has a Navy and an Air Force..."), which should never happen. If you're underway/en-route 1000nm from the AOR, the jets probably can't reach targets anyway so yeah, skipper asks CAOC or other agreed C2 agency to assign assets to Air Defence or training sorties.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - I'm wondering if you think we may be depending on the QE (as we'll only have one at any time) to engage in any unilateral action against an enemy with a serious airforce or navy? Always excepting the FI I can't think of a single one ................
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
especially when we allow them to build nuclear power stations at home plate....
WEBF - I'm wondering if you think we may be depending on the QE (as we'll only have one at any time) to engage in any unilateral action against an enemy with a serious airforce or navy? Always excepting the FI I can't think of a single one ................
Our restrictive alliance with the USA has been the principal reason for decline in our operational capability against any unique threats to the UK. We have lost so much capability and flexibility by tying ourselves so closely to US strategy.
Just look at French capability and flexibility - on a budget less than ours. They can mount rapid, expeditionary operations to protect French interests and citizens (e.g. Mali), but are still regarded as valuable allies by the USA when objectives align.
Thread Starter
MSOCS
Think back to the Gulf 1991 - the coalition had months to prepare to fight Saddam. But as part of the overall plan, it was necessary for British and American forces to clear minefields at the top of the NAG. Although the air threat had been nullified, there was a threat from missile armed Fast Attack Craft and land based anti ship missiles - which complicated mine clearance efforts. Is that what you mean by battle space shaping?
What if there had been a real air threat?
F-35B is a flexible beast, so this is largely a pointless argument - assuming flexible command and control arrangements. Will they be responsive enough to cope with the enemy taking the initiative?
I am minded to quote Not_a_boffin from the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread:
By the way you do realise that one of the niches of F-35B is ISTAR capabilities, and network connectivity, and in trials it has provided cuing for surface based weapons? Another carrier role is to carry and operate ASW helicopters (Merlin HM2 in our case) as I am sure you know. This is a task group capability and will coexist with supporting fixed wing operations.
HH
Why does it have to be unilateral? Even in coalition operations a UK task group may have considerable geographical area to cover.
Think back to the Gulf 1991 - the coalition had months to prepare to fight Saddam. But as part of the overall plan, it was necessary for British and American forces to clear minefields at the top of the NAG. Although the air threat had been nullified, there was a threat from missile armed Fast Attack Craft and land based anti ship missiles - which complicated mine clearance efforts. Is that what you mean by battle space shaping?
What if there had been a real air threat?
F-35B is a flexible beast, so this is largely a pointless argument - assuming flexible command and control arrangements. Will they be responsive enough to cope with the enemy taking the initiative?
I am minded to quote Not_a_boffin from the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread:
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
The only people who thought T45 was able to defend a naval force on it's own were the window-lickers in the Treasury and CS in the MoD who had to sell the "taking risk on retirement of SHAR". You'll note that none of the naval folk involved pretended for one minute that they were happy with the idea. Particularly now as we're only getting six T45, not the eight planned at the time.
A T45 has 48 Aster cells, which based on a couple per inbound allows 24 engagements. Nearly thirty years ago, a relatively unsophisticated force was capable of generating several waves of over twenty aircraft per day, sustained over a couple of weeks despite some fairly heavy losses. How long to empty the silos - particularly if your opponent is adept at feinting - ie forcing a SAM launch without pressing the attack? What if your RoE prevent use of PAAMS (or Sea Viper as we're now supposed to call it) in automatic mode?
The point about FW air is that it can identify inbounds and confirm intent, intercept to warn off, or splash if required. Most crucially of all, it allows you to kill the archer, not the arrow, which is usually the most efficient way of defence. All of this applies equally to aircraft defending land as well as a maritime force. From another perspective, one does not try to do SEAD by killing the SAM, you go after the launcher and the C2, similarly the artillery battery is the target, not the projectile if you want to counter artillery.
The point about a helo carrier & AV8As owning the airspace is that just by fitting a 20mm pod to the aircraft, you make it a lethal threat to a helo force, which cannot therefore probe beyond the cover of it's own force SAM (and deconfliction there would be a bitch). The naval force can therefore no longer see over the horizon - which reduces threat warning, decreases the arc a SAM ship can defend and generally makes the force AAWC very unhappy. This also allows threat air a lot more freedom in approach, flight plan etc all of which significantly reduces the effectiveness of the defences.
As for all JSF only doing strike, I suspect that reflects the single role mentality prevalent in some quarters. No-one really thinks Dave is just a bomb truck do they? Naval aircrew and aircraft are usually expected to operate in different roles, even if they don't necessarily excel in one. The ability of CVF to accommodate 30+ FW allows a small number to be allocated to deck alert or rotated through CAP, while the remainder deliver strike (or Surface Warfare, or OCA for that matter). The proportion allocated between DCA and other missions can vary according to the threat at the time. AD fighters can do OCA and escort strikes, they don't just sit and defend the ship 24/7. I assume the same applies to land-based air - some fighters are presumably tasked to defend strike aircraft bases when there is an air threat, surely?
Maritime forces need layered defences, FW & AEW to engage the threat at long range and kill it before the more complex problem (high-speed weaving missiles) becomes an issue. If it does, then that's what your SAM and CIWS systems do. Same applies to land, read E3, Ground-based radar,Tiffy and Rapier (what's left of it), plus rock apes for a different threat.
A T45 has 48 Aster cells, which based on a couple per inbound allows 24 engagements. Nearly thirty years ago, a relatively unsophisticated force was capable of generating several waves of over twenty aircraft per day, sustained over a couple of weeks despite some fairly heavy losses. How long to empty the silos - particularly if your opponent is adept at feinting - ie forcing a SAM launch without pressing the attack? What if your RoE prevent use of PAAMS (or Sea Viper as we're now supposed to call it) in automatic mode?
The point about FW air is that it can identify inbounds and confirm intent, intercept to warn off, or splash if required. Most crucially of all, it allows you to kill the archer, not the arrow, which is usually the most efficient way of defence. All of this applies equally to aircraft defending land as well as a maritime force. From another perspective, one does not try to do SEAD by killing the SAM, you go after the launcher and the C2, similarly the artillery battery is the target, not the projectile if you want to counter artillery.
The point about a helo carrier & AV8As owning the airspace is that just by fitting a 20mm pod to the aircraft, you make it a lethal threat to a helo force, which cannot therefore probe beyond the cover of it's own force SAM (and deconfliction there would be a bitch). The naval force can therefore no longer see over the horizon - which reduces threat warning, decreases the arc a SAM ship can defend and generally makes the force AAWC very unhappy. This also allows threat air a lot more freedom in approach, flight plan etc all of which significantly reduces the effectiveness of the defences.
As for all JSF only doing strike, I suspect that reflects the single role mentality prevalent in some quarters. No-one really thinks Dave is just a bomb truck do they? Naval aircrew and aircraft are usually expected to operate in different roles, even if they don't necessarily excel in one. The ability of CVF to accommodate 30+ FW allows a small number to be allocated to deck alert or rotated through CAP, while the remainder deliver strike (or Surface Warfare, or OCA for that matter). The proportion allocated between DCA and other missions can vary according to the threat at the time. AD fighters can do OCA and escort strikes, they don't just sit and defend the ship 24/7. I assume the same applies to land-based air - some fighters are presumably tasked to defend strike aircraft bases when there is an air threat, surely?
Maritime forces need layered defences, FW & AEW to engage the threat at long range and kill it before the more complex problem (high-speed weaving missiles) becomes an issue. If it does, then that's what your SAM and CIWS systems do. Same applies to land, read E3, Ground-based radar,Tiffy and Rapier (what's left of it), plus rock apes for a different threat.
HH
Why does it have to be unilateral? Even in coalition operations a UK task group may have considerable geographical area to cover.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well aware of F-35's missions thanks WEBF. In your cut and paste-a-thon above, it clearly makes an assumption of 30+ F-35 aboard and therein lies my point: There won't be enough aircraft aboard to satisfy the surface fleet's DCA ask as well as conduct Strike, ISTAR, CAS etc at range. The A-A capability is best served as an OCA element frankly, and I never said T45 would be the only thing; it will have to be a part of an overall AD Plan, of which F-35 MAY contribute but that is not a given because there are many other roles that have to be fulfilled and it's scenario dependent.
I personally know that the aircraft will do a lot for the Carrier Group. Question is, will it be enough?
I personally know that the aircraft will do a lot for the Carrier Group. Question is, will it be enough?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly can't envision UK forces acting on our own anywhere serious - we don't have the ships, the aircraft, the army or the supply chain to do so
We might be able to roll up off some failing state and rescue our ex-pats and tourists or even put a small force ashore but I suspect that is restricted to West Africa & the Caribbean as a capability
We might be able to roll up off some failing state and rescue our ex-pats and tourists or even put a small force ashore but I suspect that is restricted to West Africa & the Caribbean as a capability