Originally Posted by orca
Interestingly though, we have now mentioned Winkle Brown. There's another thread running about the Mosquito and I am pretty sure that in 'Wings On My Sleeve' Brown selects the Sea Hornet for special mention - maybe as being the finest propeller fighter he flew?
I went and looked! You are correct.
He describes doing the first wartime carrier landing in a Mosquito during the war (I think at the time they were thinking of the landings in Italy, which were supported by carriers), then the first carrier landing of a Sea Hornet post war. Later he describes the DH Hornet as his favourite piston engined aircraft.
Wings On My Sleeve sets scene, not only for himself, but for the Fleet Air Arm at war. He describes the participation of the escort carrier
Audacity is defending a convoy from long range aircraft and U boats. He describes a fairly significant battle, interestingly, because of the escort commander, Cdr (later Capt) Johnny Walker, and the participation of the first escort carrier, was described in the
Wolfpack episode of
The World At War.
His story of teaching new pilots to land aboard a carrier, and of trials of new aircraft and new (mainly escort) carriers illustrate how important carrier based aircraft were to the RN during the War, something disputed by certain PPRuNe posters on various threads.
As for Sharkey Ward becoming a Pantomime villain - surely a fighter pilot does want to get behind you, to be in an optimal missile firing position? I agree that his recent writing do have a low S/N ratio.
The book
Churchill's Navy by Brian Lavery is worth a read if you can find it. As you might imagine it is a history of the RN in World War Two, but unlike other books about the subject, it does not focus too much on particular ships, battles, or personnel. He looks at the RN from a wider angle, and naval aviation gets mentioned throughout, as well as having a chapter dedicated to in and being mentioned in the chapters dealing with organisation, and things like communications, and ship design/building, and personnel, it also gets mentioned in terms of its contribution to the battle fleet, escort forces (Atlantic, Arctic, etc), and amphibious forces.
He discusses the problems the Fleet Air Arm had, but puts it in context and mention that the Navy only regained control of naval aviation months before war started, there were no Admirals of staff officers with aviation experience, naval aircraft were given low priority when it came to aircraft production, and so on.
Some of the lessons must resonant painfully with today's Admirals. The Admirals have the undersanding these days, but the politicians refuse to listen. They did not listen to the First Sea Lord at the time of SDSR, despite him being an ex CVS Captain.
Originally Posted by ShotOne
Sharky seems be allowed to pass on his opinion, almost always derogatory to the RAF, irrespective of whether its total rot, without any form of challenge. For instance he wrote an entirely nonsensical piece about how the Libyan air strikes would have been much cheaper from a carrier. Why do you let him do this without contradiction?
Maybe people believe in freedom of speech? Why is the example of Libya so absurd? After all, Libya has a coast, and other nations had carriers taking part - including USMC Harriers. As for the UK, we had destroyers/frigates directing aircraft and providing naval gunfire support to suppress defences, plus ship based rotary wing aircraft performing ISTAR roles, flying attack missions, and providing a CSAR capability. Surely it is no great leap of imagination to conclude that had we had shipborne fixed wing assets, they would have not had to fly hundreds of miles to the target, and would not have demanded large amounts of AAR support?
ORAC
Nice reminder. Those were innovative days back then. I remember seeing a documentary in which Rear Admiral Nick Goodhart explain who he had tested the concept of the Mirror Deck Landing Sight in his office using his secretary's lipstick and mirror. The concept to prototype time was shorter is those days. Modern shipborne landing aids (including those for helicopters landing aboard non carrier vessels) are derived from that brilliant piece of innovation.
Sadly, innovation has been all but killed of by the drive for mediocrity.
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
The CVF deck landing aids equipment would be portable enough to take it to where the F-35Bs will be. Probaby PaxRiver (USN test facilities) or where the UK 3 F-35Bs will end up eventually at Edwards AFB for operational testing? My guess would be NAS Patuxent River - Ttere are dummy decks available along with a replica ski jump and all the F-35B test pilots in the world.
The USN (LSOs at least) are interested in the Bedford Array. Probably a good idea for the company to test it where the most potential users can see it in action?
Surely the whole point about deck landing aids is that they are built to exist aboard ship and need to be tested aboard ship? After all, deck landing aids exist to help the pilot land his aircraft at sea, aboard a moving ship that has six axes of freedom - the linear motions of heave, sway, and surge, as well as the rotational ones of pitch, yaw, and roll, as well as intended movement through the sea. Then on top that are issues relating to things like vibration from the ship's powerplant and other machinery as well as EMC issues. It has to exist side by side with other equipment - from things like radars and communications systems to flight deck vehicles and RAS equipment.
Everything intended for naval use (from a new 30mm cannon to a new radar) has have trials aboard ship, surely this applies here too? The system needs to be demonstrated aboard a ship (preferably RN) recovering STOVL aircraft that can simulate a 60 knot approach from astern.
Perhaps this is not dissimilar to the problem of preparing people for the future, as many different things need to take place within the confines of a moving ship. We can send a few people on exchange, but
as I wondered, is that enough? We have the ability to
simulate a carrier deck ashore at Culdrose, but it is static. Like equipment, people need to be tested and trained at sea. Many of the posts by the dark blue PPRuNe contingent (such as those quoted
here) allude to that. Have Their Lordships managed to educate the Ministers?
Back to
Churchill's Navy - reading gives you a sense of how similar today's issues are to those faced in the past, so the wisdom of trying to resolve them in ways that did not work then is questionable. The point is also made about the contribution of training to operational success - escort crews trained in simulators between convoys, and ships and escort groups put a lot of effort into work ups. He also mentions that commanders had much more freedom of action that they had during the First World War - another lesson perhaps?
To go back further into history, we could even draw lessons from historical commanders such as Nelson. The lessons are knowing your strengths and weaknesses and those of the opponent, understanding your weapon systems and how to use them to best effect, of every ship knowing what they needed to do, and of every man being extensively trained and knowing what to do. Even in Nelson's day most of the work of the Admiral took place before the battle.