Originally Posted by FODPlod
just another jocky - Carrier-based missions are flown i.a.w. the ATO too. Reportedly the 20 or so FJ from the
Charles de Gaulle have been conducting 35 to 40 strike sorties per day over Libya (
link), weather permitting. These have constituted over a quarter of the 4,050 NATO strike sorties up to 11 June (
link) (
link).
Accepting that the carrier-based a/c and the similar number of RAF a/c based in Italy require air tanking to different degrees, what apart from the two-hour 1,200 mile round trip between Gioia del Colle and the Libyan coast accounts for the land-based FJ having a significantly lower sortie rate than their carrier-based counterparts? Lower in the pecking order for some reason?
Because "sortie rate" is an irrelevant statistic used here only to argue the case for a carrier.
If you only had one ac, and it could fly for 23 hours then land and turn in one hour, it would have a sortie rate of one per day, yet provide cover for 23 hours (or 21 if you subtract transit time of 1hr).
Another sole ac flying 10 x 2 hour sorties a day is providing 10x the sortie rate yet is actually providing far less actual coverage (20 hours minus 20x transit times).
These are merely examples used to highlight the point. I'm not suggesting that carrier-borne ac fly 10 sorties, nor that land-based ac fly for 23 hours.
Sortie rates are irrelevant. It's time on task that is important, irrespective of wherever you take-off from or land. This is obviously not the whole story, but highlights the point I hope.