Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[FODPlod]

What's new? I remember when a slip with a chipping hammer could pierce the deck of an operational frigate, grey paint wouldn't adhere to the new GRP minehunters and special intumescent paint had to be developed to impede fire burning through their machinery space bulkheads and deckheads. Solutions were found in every case.

I also remember when carrier aircraft dropped into the oggin with alarming regularity, e.g. 55 of 145 Sea Vixens constructed were lost in accidents. As for the Harrier:

List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses)

Apparently, all versions of the F-35 have flown well over 100,000 hours without a single crash.

[George K Lee]

Mr Boffin - Sure, you may have to re-apply the deck coating after a bunch of VLs.

Wot, there haven't been any?

FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?

[Brat]

There are some real sad sacks posting. One might almost believe that Britain never had an Empire.

As for George...he’s a Russian Troll and I claim my £5.

[Not_a_boffin]

No Mr Lee (who is not a Russian troll, so Brat will have to do without).

If the coating - Camrex or the new metal-based one for the F35 VL landing areas - has defects when applied, it can deteriorate with no VL. There are a number of things that might cause that - contamination or incorrect roughness of the steel surface or primer, less than ideal environmental conditions (Rosyth is a lovely place, but can be driech as they say) even in a tent, bad batch of coating itself, lots of things. High performance coatings and application isn't like going to B&Q you know, particularly not for ones that are newly developed - you have a learning experience to go through. Re-coating of flightdecks is normal business - every time a CVS was in Portsmouth for upkeep, you'd see the flightdeck tent going up within a fortnight, but that doesn't fit the sky is falling narrative, so people try to ignore it.

Now - if you were going stateside for high-profile trials with the new jet, would you :

a) Go across without making sure the deck was in perfect condition to conduct the trials, despite having a preceding upkeep period in which you could ensure this? Or
b) Do the sensible thing and if there are patches of degraded coating, make them good, particularly in a convenient upkeep period?

Can we take it you're in Camp A?

[PhilipG]

My concern with the apparent need to repair / replace bits of the deck coating, when there have been no F35B take offs or landings on the deck, the apparent fact that the heat or downdraft from a few hundred rotary wing evolutions has caused the apparent amount of damage is concerning. It would be embarrassing if when she is on the East Coast it became apparent that each landing and take off by an F35B caused serious damage to the deck coating.
Looking at the bright side, USS Wasp has shown that operating a mixed fleet of F35Bs and rotary wings is possible, the question must be what is the difference in the deck coatings or how they were applied.

[Not_a_boffin]

You're conflating two different things. If there is deterioration of the deck coating, that does not mean that it is caused by R/W ops. If you look at the pics LL posted, you'll see tenting framed outboard the island, which says to me that there's an issue in original application - in an area that is Camrex rather than special paint anyway. Normal jogging - particularly in advance of high-profile trials.

[George K Lee]

But I still wonder why the coating is new and experimental, given that the environment under the aft nozzle is determined by engine cycle decisions taken 22 years ago. Maybe it has something to do with LM's statement in 2010, after the NAVFAC report emerged....

“The difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for the F-35B.”

The Marines said they believed it:

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2010/03/26/jsf-not-too-hot-for-carriers#axzz0l6WvdQPr

So maybe someone in QE-class land believed it as well. So now the ship needs a newly developed deck coating, and VLs on land need AM-2 or high-temperature-concrete pads.

[Levelling_the_Land]

Re: the deck coating.

It's almost as if R&D is a continual process of learning and improvement rather than magically arriving at a perfect solution.

For clarity, I know nothing of this coating, but have personal experience of R&D and new product development.

[Not_a_boffin]

Errr, no George. Let's just say that a number of research projects to identify requirements for and develop experimental flight deck coatings sufficiently robust to withstand the F35B efflux environment - which was identified as substantially worse than Harrier - date from 2003 and earlier. That it's difficult is reflected in the development contract for the actual coating being let in 2012.

However, this is classic conflation. The fact that coatings are being replaced outboard of the islands - which are camrex IIRC - suggests that it's an overall application defect issue rather than more "if only they'd listened to me and my hobby horse" Pvt Frazer whataboutery.

[Bing]

I've seen CAMREX lift in big sheets on a flight deck that had been re-coated during a refit six months previously, it's not new or unusual. Although it does speak volumes about the quality of contractor the MoD employs, especially as the bits we had to redo lasted the whole deployment.

[Not_a_boffin]

Don't you come on here with your pragmatic facts. There's a full on push to find another catastrophic issue to howl about going on here dontcha know?

[FODPlod]

...FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?

Why the need for such nastiness in a mature discussion?

Equating commercial aircraft with military FJ is rather like comparing domestic vehicles with drag racers.

How about some other FJ accident rates right up to the present day?
F-16 Aircraft Database F-16 Mishaps & Accident Reports (http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/year/2018/)

Yet another U.S. F/A-18 has just crashed in Japan. It’s the 9th Legacy Hornet lost in 6 months and the crash rate is alarming. (https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/07/yet-another-u-s-fa-18-has-just-crashed-in-japan-its-the-9th-legacy-hornet-lost-in-6-months-and-the-crash-rate-is-alarming/)

Despite its complexity, the much-maligned F-35 has an enviable safety record compared to any of its predecessors. That's all I'm saying.

[Engines]

Thomas Coupling,

Perhaps I can help a little here - we have another 'the F-35B has big problems going to the deck' discussion going on. You raised two issues.

One at a time: "Did you know that there are now problems with the exhaust speed of the F35 in VTOL configuration? Can the flt deck surface material cope?"

I don't know of a 'new' problem - the exhaust speed of the F-35B was pretty well understood by around 2003/4, due to extensive modelling and testing, the majority of the work being done by BAE. The 'external environment' team at Fort Worth was led by a Brit. The results were confirmed by full scale engine tests. One thing to remember is that in STOVL mode, about half the energy of the main engine is extracted via the shaft and clutch and fed forwards to drive the lift fan. That means that the 'hot' aft exhaust is nowhere near full power. The various test rigs that modelled the exhaust also included a dedicated rig at Warton to test the effects of the predicted exhaust on various materials including flight deck coatings. I was involved in arranging these in around 2005/6. It was known that the standard 'Camrex' coatings previously used by the RN would struggle to cope, so tests of the new 'Thermion' system that has been used on selected areas of the QE flight deck were under way in 2005. These were successful and the material was chosen for use on the QE. It's new (to the RN) and there's a risk. It was assessed as an acceptable risk, and that's a decision I agreed with at the time. The USMC subsequently went with Thermion for selected areas on their flight decks

Bottom line - I don't think that there are 'new problems'. As others have posted, it seems that there might have been a problem with putting the legacy 'Camrex' coating on. That's regrettable, but not unknown.

Second Issue: "The F35 also operates at 4 x the Db noise signature of the Harrier in the hover. How will flt deck crews cope with this?"

The F-35B does not operate at 4 times the noise signature of the Harrier. Nowhere even close. It's noisier, true, but that's an effect of physics and the velocity of the jets of air you need to keep more weight in the air. The main challenge (for the UK) was caused by the (very understandable) decision that they would have to comply with the quite demanding EU 'Noise and Vibration at Work' directive. That limits the amount of time that personnel can be exposed to varying levels of noise. The louder the noise, the shorter the time. As a result, the UK set up a programme to investigate various protective solutions. The USN was already interested in this issue, as cat and trap operations expose personnel to much higher noise levels during launches from the catapults.

The best way to reduce effects of noise on personnel is to get further away from the source of the noise. Fortunately, on the large decks of the QE class, that's not too hard to achieve. (It was MUCH harder to do on the confined decks of the 'Invincible' class - I speak from experience here).

Bottom line - the flight deck crews will cope, like they've coped with loud aircraft for many years. They will get the kit needed, and develop the routines required to operate the aircraft on the deck with an acceptable level of risk. That's what naval aviation professionals do.

Best Regards as ever to all those who did the 'hard yards' on this issue some time back,

Engines

[switch_on_lofty]

Phil G: "Looking at the bright side, USS Wasp has shown that operating a mixed fleet of F35Bs and rotary wings is possible, the question must be what is the difference in the deck coatings or how they were applied."
The difference was that the US just tried the normal coating. Having seen the results of that we decided we definitely needed the new one!!!

[Al-bert]

Engines

'higher noise levels during lunches from the catapults'

cocktail parties again?

[Engines]

Albert,

Many thanks for pointing out my rubbish typing. Age and stupidity creeping in

Best Regards as ever to all those getting their typing right

Engines

[Al-bert]

:ok: Sorry Engines - just had to be done! ;)

[Engines]

No, fair spot - it’s never too late to relearn the old lesson about reviewing your posts with a little care.

Thank you

Engines

[Basil]

No, fair spot - it’s never too late to relearn the old lesson about reviewing your posts with a little care.

Thank you

Engines
Hah! You should have seen a report written, whilst I was on leave, on my behalf and signed pp which went not only to command HQ but to the RN.
Tea without biscuits for Bas.
RN signal to my apology: "Much amused!" :

[Brat]

Mr Boffin - Sure, you may have to re-apply the deck coating after a bunch of VLs.

Wot, there haven't been any?

FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?
From a mouth that runs and runs and runs.

[glad rag]

From a mouth that runs and runs and runs.
quoted for posterity.

[Thomas coupling]

Engines, thank you for your comprehensive response - appreciated.

I would like to qualify my original quote, if I may:
My sources tell me (they who are currently working on the QE) that the flight deck surface has 'lifted' because of the incorrect process of laying it, in the first instance - nothing to do with the 'type' of material used....maybe that will surface once deck trials are completed.
Noise signature - I have a contact in Pax who flies these. He tells me they are still having discussions about the noise signature of the STOL F35. It is of such an intensity - they are struggling to come to terms with it, to date.
Now, if one is to accept that the RN has already built this into their calculations already (protecting deck crews), I wouldn't hold ones breath. Noise cancellation headgear for aircrew was widely available for over a decade commercially - before the MoD purchased it for their use way back in the early '90's. God only knew what the flight deck crew were wearing at the time!
I operated off Bulwark, Invincible and Illustrious as aircrew for a decade and "suddenly (with regard to noise issues on the flight deck) - nothing happened"! Which is why so many of us subsequently learned through our commercial medicals (after leaving the mil) that our hearing was damaged.

[FODPlod]

A clip from last night's final episode of the excellent BBC2 series 'Britain's Biggest Warship':

Aircraft for the Carrier (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p065hr18)

The entire series can be watched again on iPlayer:

Britain's Biggest Warship (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b08zfk/episodes/player)

[Engines]

Thomas,

Thanks for coming back. Taking your points one at a time:

1. Putting coatings down on flight decks can be surprisingly difficult to achieve reliably. The RN, the USN and many other navies have had experience of coatings lifting. It's easy to blame the people doing the job, and on occasions it's the right thing to do. Sometime's it's 'the unforeseen' or just bad luck. My guess (and that's all it is) is that QE may have had a bit of all three. I'd guess that it's the Camrex that has caused the issue, rather than the newer Thermion - but I stand ready to be corrected.

2. Noise. All I can say is that unless there is some form of new mechanism causing an increase in noise intensity the F-35B noise signature was pretty well characterised by the end of initial flight trials. Incidentally, the signature is far better understood than the Harrier's ever was. I stand by my assessment that it shouldn't present an insuperable problem, as long as decent hearing protection is provided. The measured noise levels during VLs and STOs were higher than the Harrier's, but certainly not 'off the scale'. The highest F-35 noise levels we found were those encountered by deck crews close to the F-35C during catapult launches. As far as hearing protection goes, I cleared the RN's first use of Active Noise Reduction (ANR) aircrew equipment on the Harrier T8, where we stumbled across very high noise levels in the rear cockpit. It's fair to say that the RN's understanding of the potential for noise related damage to hearing was about as good as anyone else's in the 90s, which wasn't very good at all. The kit I wore on flight decks in the 80s was frankly poor, and anyone who cared about their hearing did their best to source a USN flight deck headset once they got across the pond. (I got my USN headset in exchange for a No. 8 shirt, which the USN guys coveted greatly). By 2002, when I joined the F-35 programme, hearing protection was a MAJOR issue not only for the UK but also for the USN, as their bill for paying compensation to ex USN flight deck personnel started to go stratospheric. As I mentioned earlier, the UK's decision to comply with the EU's Directive 2003/10/EC on noise exposure was a real challenge, which gave the problem even higher visibility.

The teams were looking at just about anything that could help, including (but not limited to) 'deep in ear plugs' (the 'wet snail'), ANR, and more effective ear cups. Once you'd exhausted that, they were looking at noise transmission through the skull, and I believe people were looking at some form of fully enclosed helmet, a little like the ones used by firefighters these days. One problem was that if you sealed the deck crews off from all external noise, it made any sort of verbal comms a bit of a challenge - it would also rob them of useful audio cues for when something bad happened on the deck - such as loud bangs or grinding metal. I'd be interested to learn what solution the RN has come up with for flight deck comms - the 'mag loop' systems we were using were really not fit for service.

As ever, working a flight deck can throw up new and unexpected challenges. If there's ONE thing I have confidence in, it's the ingenuity and good sense of the Fleet Air Arm, which has overcome these challenges for many years. it's a fine tradition, and I think it will win through again this time.

Best regards as ever to all our great new, young, flight deck crews,

Engines

[Thomas coupling]

F-35Cs Can't Receive Spare Engines on Carriers Without V-22s - Avionics (http://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/04/18/f-35cs-cant-receive-spare-engines-carriers-without-v-22s/)

[Heathrow Harry]

I though that had been raised a longggg time ago?????

Didn't LM offer a version of the Viking S3 to fill the gap??

[Engines]

Thomas,

I don't know why you're posting this link, but working on the assumption that you want to know a bit more about the issue (as opposed to just throwing up carrier related 'bad news' ), here goes...

There was no requirement for all of the F-35 support equipment, spares, etc. to be transportable by COD, or V-22 for that matter. There was a requirement for the F135 engine to be capable of being moved from ship to ship by wire RAS in its container. Incidentally, the F135 is Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), so responsibility for sorting out how it gets on a ship lies with the US DoD and in the case of the RN, the MoD. LM's main task was was working out how to change an F135 while the ship was moving about - and that was quite a challenge.

The USMC already, some time back, demonstrated a concept for moving the power module of the F135 (the core of the engine) around in a V-22, using a specially developed 'sled' to reduce overall size. The complete F135 is a very large piece of kit, and is normally (as far as I know) moved around in its sections (or 'modules'). The UK operated for some years with Sea Harriers and their Pegasus engines, which could only be brought on board by crane alongside, or possibly by (very) short range vertical replenishment as an underslung load. (We once moved a Peggie from the ship to ashore in Bermuda using a Sea King).

So, my take would be that spare engine modules (or even complete engines) would normally be brought on board ship by crane whilst alongside, before the ship sailed, or at designated ports during deployment - just like any other large items of stores required during a deployment. Modules would be assembled into complete engines on board in the designated bay near the hangar. Next step along would be via ship to ship RAS, and if that failed, perhaps using a friendly local USMC V-22. Or perhaps they could embark a Chinook for those occasional 'big lift' jobs - the RAF have plenty of them, and the ship has a bit of space. Perhaps the RAF would be able to provide a continuously embarked flight of, say, three aircraft for those unforeseen arisings (humanitarian work, lift and shift, rescue work, disaster relief, etc.).

Hope this helps. Best regards as ever to all those superbly professional types who handle maritime logistics,

Engines

[tucumseh]

Engine's recollection about noise and what action the RN took is accurate. In August 1998, having completed flight trials of the first fully integrated ANR in Sea King (that is, the helmet becomes an Intercom LRU as well as an AEA, as it is powered and sits within the TEMPEST boundary), DOR(Sea) asked me to prepare an Admiralty Board Submission to develop and introduce hearing protection across the FAA, including ground/deck crew. (Used to be a DGA(N) job, but they got rid of the posts in 1988 so I was paid to do something I'd done as a lad). I submitted it on 1 September 1998. Such things need a champion, and when the OR officer moved on matters seem to have slowed considerably.

Engines mentions other solutions. In 1995 the FAA specifically rejected in-ear devices, so ANR earshells were the only viable solution. The Sea King system was of no use in a Lynx for example, but purely by coincidence worked in a Sea Harrier. Different noise sources, but very similar frequencies. Janes DW published an extensive article at the time, and the Portsmouth MP (Hancock) raised it in the House, due to the threat of litigation. (Search ANR + Hansard). What made HQ twitch was the way the requirement was expressed, as 'allowable flying hours'. 600 were needed per year; without ANR only 59 were permitted, which of course was conveniently kept under wraps until Janes published. If you ever feel like submitting a claim, it's all on record......and backdateable to 1998.

[EricsLad]

From my experience of music events in sports stadia - noise cancelling microphones are easy.
If the noise is so loud (Rolling Stones,Stereophonics,etc) no earpiece arrangement will work.
I suspect that having some form of helmet mounted visor display with voice recognition from the noise cancelling microphone over radio might work.

[EAP86]

I had some exposure to the issue of F35B noise in the cockpit some time ago wrt its potential effects on TP aircrew following the EU directive 2003/10/EC. The noise levels in the hover are a bit of a challenge to say the least. When I discussed ANR with a specialist he seemed sceptical whether it was a truly viable solution. The problem was how to put in sufficient energy to counteract enough of the noise - not that easy (and current ANR systems don't reduce the noise energy by very much at all). It also created the problems of ANR failure; it could fail and result in no protection or fail and multiply the effects on the aircrew. Not good...

EAP

[sandiego89]

Thomas,

I don't know why you're posting this link.....

That Avionics link looks like a thinly veiled paid pitch for the V-22, it even suggests one of the reasons the US Marines have deployed the B to ships is that they have the V-22 to carry extra engines- a bit of a stretch, I'm sure the Marines took a few spares aboard before setting sail, or could get them from shore or via UNREP as Engines suggests. The articles mentions some spare slots in the V-22 production run and even has these clinchers: "....and other foreign partners would probably want to get in on this, too, since we’re getting a great deal, pre-negotiated prices ...". Hurry now, these sale prices won't last! No mentions of "No money down! Bad credit? No credit? no-problem! drive today!"

[KenV]

I was there....
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/aircraft-carriers-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers
"Thales is providing the communications systems on-board both carriers. The systems, from wireless on-board to satellite connectivity,.."
"Thales leads the Power and Propulsion element of the QEC programme..."

"...the long-range S1850M radar, which has been supplied by Thales ..."

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/carriers-innovative-control-tower-supply-chain-success-story
"One of these is the leadership of the platform design and aviation teams..."

"... Thales has been deeply involved in the provision of the radar, communications, power and propulsion systems right from the start. ..."

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/british-aircraft-carrier-hms-queen-elizabeth-begins-50-years-service

Thales - A French MultiNational Company.

I was there..............................Hmmm. Bechtel designed and builds the reactors, Lockheed the combat information systems, Raytheon the radars and missiles, Westinghouse the power systems, General Atomic the launch systems, etc etc of the Ford Class carriers. So these systems subcontractors actually designed the Ford class carriers, and Newport News, who is the only contractor with all the Naval Architects, really did not design these ships. Uh huh, Shur.

[westernhero]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/01/britain-unlikely-use-new-aircraft-carriers-falklands-style-conflict/

behind a paywall, to be honest I'd have thought the only likely use of the carriers on our own would have been the Falklands seeing as Argentina has very little to offer in offensive capability. How informed is Sir Mark ?

[westernhero]

The Mail offers a bit more of his thoughts. New £3.5bn ship HMS Queen Elizabeth will never see one-on-one combat | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5679107/Britains-new-3-5billion-aircraft-carrier-never-one-one-enemy.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5679107/Britains-new-3-5billion-aircraft-carrier-never-one-one-enemy.html)

[tucumseh]

EAP86

(and current ANR systems don't reduce the noise energy by very much at all)

EAP, I don't doubt your experience of this, but I'd ask what systems are being used and who did the noise surveys for each application.

I recall that in the mid-90s there was little or no understanding that it wasn't a case of using any old broadband ANR system, such as those used in the back of armoured vehicles where the occupants don't need to hear too many audio cues. Merlin, for example, didn't understand this, as they were fixated on ANR for passengers (troops), ignoring the fact that it was aircrew who were receiving the long term damaging (as distinct from annoying) noise dose. In 2012, a well-known audio company were still selling broadband systems to aircrew. And presumably telling them it was safe. MoD was 30 years ahead of them. Only MoD didn't know this, as it had lost corporate knowledge. Witness, in 2006 the Nimrod IPT issued an Invitation to Tender to develop an 85dB(A) system for aircrew, ignorant of the fact Sea King had already delivered an upgraded 75dB(A) system in 2000 (73 achieved) that actually met the legal requirement. When informed of this by one bidder, the company was blacklisted and removed from the tender list, because the IPT wouldn't admit it was about to let a multi-million development contract for something that was on its own shelf at £750. In fact, and a little sarcastically, they were offered the RN's old 85 system free of charge, if that's what they really wanted. This leads me to believe that a wheel is being reinvented.

[Not_a_boffin]

The Mail offers a bit more of his thoughts. New £3.5bn ship HMS Queen Elizabeth will never see one-on-one combat Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5679107/Britains-new-3-5billion-aircraft-carrier-never-one-one-enemy.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5679107/Britains-new-3-5billion-aircraft-carrier-never-one-one-enemy.html)



You could take the expertise of the Wail. Or you could read the actual evidence session here (http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/modernising-defence-programme/oral/82257.pdf). Relevant bits from Q174 or thereabouts and what is said is somewhat different from the howls of outrage above. What that part of the debate is actually about is whether the 2% GDP number is actually sufficient for UK defence given re-emergence of state on state threats. Something that Sir Mark spends the period immediately after that section rivalling Sir Humphrey in equivocation. Fair play to him, he spent over two hours being grilled, even if he wasn't particularly convincing on the fiscal neutrality and proposed cuts part of the piece.

Comes across as a very capable CS, with certain preconceptions about defence and an innate assumption that spending more money is not required - at least not in defence.

[EAP86]

Tuc, I'm not familiar at all with any extant ANR systems (apart from the Harrier one) but the specialist may have been. His main MOD poc was the IAM (or RAF CAM or SAM or whatever they were then) as it was seen as an aeromedical matter. I may be wrong but they should know about such things. The challenge with the F35B was the sheer intensity of the noise, far above normal military cockpit or cabin levels. In-ear devices had difficulties with the energy levels even with a well designed helmet and as stated before, the failure behavior was a problem. I confess it wasn't a long conversation but at one point we mused on the possibility of using cockpit side skins as a source of countering noise. Maybe not a serious possible solution but perhaps the panel size does indicate the difficulty the noise intensity levels created.

EAP

[tucumseh]

EAP

Long time since I was involved. I know the SHAR noise dose was similar to Sea King. 115-120dB(A) if I recall, making the reduction to 73 an astonishing achievement by the Farnborough scientists. The EFA helmet people came to see me in about 1997, but I don't know what they did. You are right about aeromedical. An RAF Gp Capt ran the Applied Research Package in the 80s. Once he delivered the concept (for RAF Harrier, but they had problems with the Mk10 helmet at the time), it was for the aircraft office to 'pull it through'. That is, apply the science. At that point, speech intelligibility and annoying noise was added to the equation; meaning you have to consider the entire comms sub-system. One stumbling block was the early submissions had pages of decibel notation, and scrutineers toppled. Once changed to 'allowable flying hours' it all made sense - along with the realisation just how serious the problem was. FONAC's attitude changed from not interested, to Critical Health and Safety Constraint in the Constraints Document, in the space of a few days. Which is what kicks off procurement, and makes it very easy to sail through scrutiny. One benefit was a/c soundproofing could be removed, helping CofG and increasing fuel load; so you could mention spend to save. I wouldn't say money was no object, because the one thing denied me was new helmet transducers. I wanted superb French ones, but was told to retain the cheap crap that is in the Mk4A, which is like buying a £50k CD player and using a pair of headphones out of Poundland. Yet, I was able to get money for made-to-measure helmets for everyone in the squadron - none of this short/medium long/if it doesn't fit, tough luck nonsense. I was never sure how many took up the offer, but they would have gone to the company and had their head laser-mapped, waited a couple of hours and gone home with two new helmets. My attitude was, if I've got £20M to modify each cab, then a few grand for each pilot and observer was loose change.

[alfred_the_great]

Comes across as a very capable CS, with certain preconceptions about defence and an innate assumption that spending more money is not required - at least not in defence.

I think it's not he doesn't think that defence doesn't need more money, but rather, we're not very convincing in saying how'd we spend it.

Don't forget he looks across the span of National Security, and the rest of it (except maybe GCHQ) is far cheaper than Defence. Money applied elsewhere would get a far greater return.

[Not_a_boffin]

Indeed. However - and I appreciate that as CS he's unable to voice an opinion - he seemed completely oblivious to the argument that 2%GDP was insufficient when compared to previous levels of budget for the threat. There's an element of institutional capture prevalent in all policy HQs that says here's the budget, deliver the capability irrespective of whether it is deliverable. If not, reduce capability rather than ask for increased budget.

Those are the big boys rules - but it can lead to a certain intellectual blindness. Much like the "there is no submarine threat" view fashionable in MB and elsewhere until relatively recently.

[alfred_the_great]

Indeed. However - and I appreciate that as CS he's unable to voice an opinion - he seemed completely oblivious to the argument that 2%GDP was insufficient when compared to previous levels of budget for the threat. There's an element of institutional capture prevalent in all policy HQs that says here's the budget, deliver the capability irrespective of whether it is deliverable. If not, reduce capability rather than ask for increased budget.

Those are the big boys rules - but it can lead to a certain intellectual blindness. Much like the "there is no submarine threat" view fashionable in MB and elsewhere until relatively recently.

He was quite clear - 2% was his direction from the PM, and it was for Ministers to decide otherwise. I think one of the more interesting points he made was that the MDP is going to present a shopping list, with associated costs, and leave it to Ministers to select the ones they want.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I re-watched episode one of the Chris Terrill documentary yesterday on BBC IPlayer (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0b08zfk) yesterday and caught up with episodes two and three. I have commented on episode one before, noting the Cdr (Air)'s comments about integration, the chockheads training at Culdrose, and the training role of the mighty Sea Harrier - still aiding Navy and Nation. The second episode was more about things like engineering trials, some gunnery serials, and the inevitable mishaps that happen in a warship. The issue with the propeller shows the complexity of of the engineering - but of course that is why you have trials.

The second one also featured Merlins landing on and taking off from the deck - although I was disappointed that it was not pointed out that providing multiple ASW helicopters for long range task group ASW is an important carrier role. The third episode was a little disappointing with little coverage of flying during a period when the deck would have been busy. They did show some of the features that will contribute to her ability to deal with major flight deck fires. The visit to the United States and coverage of the F-35B testing (and interview with RN Pilot) was good, as was finally seeing her being commissioned by Her Majesty and the White Ensign being raised.

As ever, the use of 'it' instead of 'she' or 'her' annoyed me a bit, as did the constant use of 'on' [the ship], as opposed to 'in' - see Chapter One of BR67. However this was meant to be easy to understand, hence Caroline Catz explaining what RPM stands for and what Port and Starboard mean. I was pleased that she noted the role of Communications - the F-35B will contribute to the C4ISTAR capabilities of a task group in a way no other aircraft (or ship) can.

[glad rag]

"the F-35B will contribute to the C4ISTAR capabilities of a task group in a way no other aircraft (or ship) can."
When ?

[KenV]

"the F-35B will contribute to the C4ISTAR capabilities of a task group in a way no other aircraft (or ship) can."
When ?Probably about the same time QE becomes fully operational, which is planned for 2020, but which is expected to slip.

[glad rag]

Probably about the same time QE becomes fully operational, which is planned for 2020, but which is expected to slip.

Deck coatings, again?

[KenV]

Deck coatings, again?Again? Still? I don't know. But she is the largest and by far the most complex warship the RN has EVER owned. And the RN has not been operating an aircraft carrier for quite some time. Learning how to effectively and safely operate a carrier has a magnificently large and steep learning curve. There's a good reason QE's first deployment will be with USMC F-35Bs aboard. It's an effective and efficient way for her crew to work their way up that learning curve.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

"the F-35B will contribute to the C4ISTAR capabilities of a task group in a way no other aircraft (or ship) can."
When ?

When it deploys operationally with a carrier based task group!

Learning how to effectively and safely operate a carrier has a magnificently large and steep learning curve.

Including the basics - such as having live jets on deck moving under their own power, producing jet blast, being subject to the movement of the deck (Newton's Laws of Motion win)..... Back in 2009, I was in a room when the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer told us that the plan for the future and building skills for the future was to embark Harriers aboard Illustrious and Ark Royal as often as possible, with more aircraft embarked for longer periods. Cutbacks and politics seem to have ignored this need.

Why make things easy for ourselves?

By the way - is HMS Queen Elizabeth still due to put to sea again in June? I understand she is not only having work done on the flight deck, but also she is having cosmetic work done, having the scullery upgraded, being fitted with Phalanx and DS30M Mk 2 weapons, and having equipment fitted to support the recovery of fixed wing aircraft such as the Instrument Carrier Landing System.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

ANALYSIS: UK gets ready to rejoin aircraft carrier elite (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-uk-gets-ready-to-rejoin-aircraft-carrier-e-447765/)

Back in November 2010, then-Lt Cdr James Blackmore became the last pilot of a BAE Systems Harrier to launch from the flightdeck of the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, bringing to an end three decades of shipborne short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations from the service's three Invincible-class carriers.

In a circuitous arc, now Cdr Blackmore will in five months oversee the re-birth of fixed-wing aviation in the RN, as HMS Queen Elizabeth – the first of its two new 65,000t aircraft carriers – begins first of class flying trials (FOCFT) with STOVL aircraft of an altogether different kind.

Two fully instrumented Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II development aircraft from the Integrated Test Force (ITF) at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, will join the ship off the eastern seaboard of the USA for two development test periods – dubbed DT-1 and DT-2 – running through October and November.

The purpose of the FOCFT activity is to validate design modelling and support the production of the full ship/air integration release. To achieve these objectives necessitates operating the aircraft and ship in a wide range of load, motion, wind and environmental conditions, using instrumentation to capture detailed trials data. These individual test points are used to define the limits of the safe operating envelope.

As Commander Air – a role that sees him in overall control of aviation operations in, on and around the carrier – Blackmore and his air department will manage the FOCFT flying programme from the flying control (FLYCO) office extending out from Queen Elizabeth’s aft island.

"This ship is over three times the size of our previous aircraft carriers, and the flightdeck is two-and-a-half times bigger," he tells FlightGlobal. "So we’ve got much more area to park and operate helicopters and jets. And while the ship is a little smaller than a US Navy carrier, the deck area we’ve got is roughly similar."

FLYCO is the focal point for aviation control. "That’s what's happening on the flightdeck and in the hangars and into the airspace around the ship itself," says Blackmore. "We’ve got full visibility across the deck, plus all the sensor feeds displayed on various screens, so we have massive situational awareness."

Also housed in FLYCO is the landing signals officer (LSO): a qualified fixed-wing aviator trained to assist pilots to safely recover to the carrier.

Already through rotary-wing flight trials, Queen Elizabeth will set sail from Portsmouth in August to begin the four-month WESTLANT 18 deployment. But while the embarkation of ITF development aircraft BF-04 and BF-05 will mark the first time that the F-35B has operated from the carrier, a nucleus of RN personnel is already familiar with the operation of the aircraft, thanks to a unique ship/air simulation environment built by BAE at its Warton site in Lancashire, northwest England.

Previously used to de-risk the integration of the F-35B and the Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) carriers, the simulator facility has more recently been employed to develop standard operating procedures for aviation operations on board.

INTEGRATION

Bringing the F-35B and vessels together presents both a unique opportunity and a complex challenge. The fact that the aircraft and ship are both new means it has been possible, to a greater extent, to optimise the carrier design to operate and support the STOVL variant of the fifth-generation Lightning II.

At the same time, a number of uncertainties have necessarily arisen from the fact that design, development and demonstration activities for the F-35B and new RN ships have effectively been run in parallel, albeit with some excursions en route.

Piloted flight simulation has played a major part in identifying and assessing integration issues well ahead of FOCFT. In 2007, BAE established an F-35/QEC integration facility in Warton as a tool to help characterise and de-risk the ship/air interface.

This facility, which adapted an existing motion dome simulator, was used to test the capabilities of both the aircraft and ship aviation systems, allowing integration issues to be ironed out early, informing options and choices, and enabling design changes to be implemented at a stage when their cost and programme impact was relatively small.

Having begun as a piloted flight simulation environment, the facility was enhanced in 2011 by the addition of a simulation of the LSO workstation. Networking these two entities provided for a realistic simulation of pilot and LSO interaction to allow for a more rigorous assessment of the capabilities of the aircraft and ship systems.

While the original simulation facility made a valuable contribution to F-35/QEC integration, it was recognised that it had some inherent limitations with regard to pilot field of view, motion response and cockpit fidelity. As a result, BAE took the decision in 2014 to invest in the development of a new and improved facility that could support ship/air integration through to FOCFT.

Commissioned last year, this updated simulation environment integrates two components: a fully representative F-35 cockpit mounted on a six-axis electric motion system inside a fixed-radius dome featuring a high-fidelity carrier model together with a dynamic sea surface; and an adjacent facility, fully integrated with the piloted simulator, that simulates the environment inside and "outside" FLYCO.

REALISTIC REPRESENTATION

The representative FLYCO space includes a replica of the LSO workstation looking aft. A widescreen projection system shows a realistic outside world scene: visuals can include a selection of pre-recorded take-offs/recoveries, and/or "live" flights being conducted by the pilot in the adjacent flight simulator.

The first use for the new facility was to support a series of pilot evaluations of the short rolling vertical landing (SRVL) recovery manoeuvre. Designed to significantly increase "bring-back" performance, an SRVL exploits the ability of the F-35B to use vectored thrust to maintain limited forward speed until after touchdown.

SRVL will be part of the forthcoming flying trials, says Blackmore. "It allows us to be more flexible with the way we use the deck, and more flexible in the way we bring our aircraft back because of the performance enhancements it brings."

Earlier this year, the focus of activities at Warton switched to initial preparations for FOCFT and supporting wider operational development. For a week in late March, personnel from Queen Elizabeth’s FLYCO worked together with a team of naval F-35B pilots from the UK's 17 Test and Evaluation Sqn (functioning as LSOs) and an ITF test pilot to develop and practise standard operating procedures for fixed-wing operations.

"This presented a first opportunity to train together and get ready to bring the aircraft on for real this autumn," Blackmore explains. "We plan to come back for a second period of simulator work in June, which will be a more structured ‘rehearsal’.

"This is a really good way of de-risking and understanding that process. In fact, we’ve gone beyond what we’re going to do in the autumn [and have] started to explore what operations will look like once we've fully delivered the capability – so, the ability to operate beyond four aircraft, multiple vertical landings, as well as bringing in the shipborne rolling vertical landing, which is a novel landing manoeuvre we are introducing with QEC.”

Cdr Nathan Gray offers a pilot’s perspective on the Warton simulator. A former Sea Harrier FA2 pilot who subsequently flew the Harrier GR7/9 and, on exchange, the US Marine Corps' Boeing AV-8B Harrier II, he currently serves as a developmental test pilot in the F-35 ITF, and is one of the three UK pilots assigned to the forthcoming FOCFT programme.

"We are just months away from landing the first F-35 on Queen Elizabeth, so it is critical now that we get procedures in place," says Gray. "Although these will be adapted as we go forward and gain a greater understanding of what capabilities we have, we still need that sound foundation of good practice, so we need to make sure that our initial decisions are the right decisions.

"That’s why this simulation facility is a tremendous asset to our programme. When you walk into FLYCO and you see the environment around you – the sea and the motion of the ship – as a maritime aviator, you get that knot in your stomach. You feel like you're at sea.

"From the aircraft standpoint, it's the most realistic simulator that I have ever flown, he says. "It's full motion, with the helmet and full symbology, a highly representative cockpit environment, and the 'outside world' graphics. This is the only simulator-unique facility in the world where we've combined the true F-35 air vehicle model with air wakes from computational fluid dynamics and with ship motion. All three have been brought together and then plugged in with a FLYCO simulator so we can run real-time motion."

BEYOND SIMULATION

Gray believes the UK is now as prepared as it can be to bring the F-35B on board Queen Elizabeth. "The aircraft development programme is complete, we've completed ski-jump testing at Pax River and we have all the learning from the simulation environment here. The test plan has been finalised, [and] we've got the evidence base so that we believe we know where the boundaries are. That said, simulator models can only be trusted so far. So we have to use our intelligent reasoning to slowly progress the flight trials, steadily working outwards from the centre of the envelope."

DT-1 and DT-2 will each amount to about three weeks of flying, with a week of downtime between. "There are going to be days when the weather doesn't support flight testing," notes Gray. “So we have to find very benign conditions in the initial stages, and then as the tests progress, we have to go and find the harsher conditions.

"The biggest constraint will probably be the weather, because it only gets so bad on the east coast. Our challenge will be to predict where those sea states are [and] where we believe we are going to get that ship motion and the wind conditions."

While FOCFT will establish ship clearances for the F-35B, further development and operational testing will be required ahead of the UK declaring initial operating capability (Maritime) at the end of December 2020. A first operational deployment will follow in 2021, with Queen Elizabeth to embark a USMC F-35B squadron alongside aircraft from the UK's Lightning Force.

"To be part of the Carrier Strike programme, and to know that this is our lasting legacy, is very exciting," says Gray. "We’ve got an aircraft and a carrier that will change the way we do business, and the way that the UK can project power."

From several weeks ago.

[Heathrow Harry]

Well they've bought another "Astute" thank God...............

[ORAC]

"the F-35B will contribute to the C4ISTAR capabilities of a task group in a way no other aircraft (or ship) can." A beautifully ambiguous statement which doesn’t actually say anything......

[Heathrow Harry]

Give that man a Knighthood!!!

[glad rag]

ANALYSIS: UK gets ready to rejoin aircraft carrier elite (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-uk-gets-ready-to-rejoin-aircraft-carrier-e-447765/)

Back in November 2010, then-Lt Cdr James Blackmore became the last pilot of a BAE Systems Harrier to launch from the flightdeck of the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, bringing to an end three decades of shipborne short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations from the service's three Invincible-class carriers.

In a circuitous arc, now Cdr Blackmore will in five months oversee the re-birth of fixed-wing aviation in the RN, as HMS Queen Elizabeth – the first of its two new 65,000t aircraft carriers – begins first of class flying trials (FOCFT) with STOVL aircraft of an altogether different kind.

Two fully instrumented Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II development aircraft from the Integrated Test Force (ITF) at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, will join the ship off the eastern seaboard of the USA for two development test periods – dubbed DT-1 and DT-2 – running through October and November.

The purpose of the FOCFT activity is to validate design modelling and support the production of the full ship/air integration release. To achieve these objectives necessitates operating the aircraft and ship in a wide range of load, motion, wind and environmental conditions, using instrumentation to capture detailed trials data. These individual test points are used to define the limits of the safe operating envelope.

As Commander Air – a role that sees him in overall control of aviation operations in, on and around the carrier – Blackmore and his air department will manage the FOCFT flying programme from the flying control (FLYCO) office extending out from Queen Elizabeth’s aft island.

"This ship is over three times the size of our previous aircraft carriers, and the flightdeck is two-and-a-half times bigger," he tells FlightGlobal. "So we’ve got much more area to park and operate helicopters and jets. And while the ship is a little smaller than a US Navy carrier, the deck area we’ve got is roughly similar."

FLYCO is the focal point for aviation control. "That’s what's happening on the flightdeck and in the hangars and into the airspace around the ship itself," says Blackmore. "We’ve got full visibility across the deck, plus all the sensor feeds displayed on various screens, so we have massive situational awareness."

Also housed in FLYCO is the landing signals officer (LSO): a qualified fixed-wing aviator trained to assist pilots to safely recover to the carrier.

Already through rotary-wing flight trials, Queen Elizabeth will set sail from Portsmouth in August to begin the four-month WESTLANT 18 deployment. But while the embarkation of ITF development aircraft BF-04 and BF-05 will mark the first time that the F-35B has operated from the carrier, a nucleus of RN personnel is already familiar with the operation of the aircraft, thanks to a unique ship/air simulation environment built by BAE at its Warton site in Lancashire, northwest England.

Previously used to de-risk the integration of the F-35B and the Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) carriers, the simulator facility has more recently been employed to develop standard operating procedures for aviation operations on board.

INTEGRATION

Bringing the F-35B and vessels together presents both a unique opportunity and a complex challenge. The fact that the aircraft and ship are both new means it has been possible, to a greater extent, to optimise the carrier design to operate and support the STOVL variant of the fifth-generation Lightning II.

At the same time, a number of uncertainties have necessarily arisen from the fact that design, development and demonstration activities for the F-35B and new RN ships have effectively been run in parallel, albeit with some excursions en route.

Piloted flight simulation has played a major part in identifying and assessing integration issues well ahead of FOCFT. In 2007, BAE established an F-35/QEC integration facility in Warton as a tool to help characterise and de-risk the ship/air interface.

This facility, which adapted an existing motion dome simulator, was used to test the capabilities of both the aircraft and ship aviation systems, allowing integration issues to be ironed out early, informing options and choices, and enabling design changes to be implemented at a stage when their cost and programme impact was relatively small.

Having begun as a piloted flight simulation environment, the facility was enhanced in 2011 by the addition of a simulation of the LSO workstation. Networking these two entities provided for a realistic simulation of pilot and LSO interaction to allow for a more rigorous assessment of the capabilities of the aircraft and ship systems.

While the original simulation facility made a valuable contribution to F-35/QEC integration, it was recognised that it had some inherent limitations with regard to pilot field of view, motion response and cockpit fidelity. As a result, BAE took the decision in 2014 to invest in the development of a new and improved facility that could support ship/air integration through to FOCFT.

Commissioned last year, this updated simulation environment integrates two components: a fully representative F-35 cockpit mounted on a six-axis electric motion system inside a fixed-radius dome featuring a high-fidelity carrier model together with a dynamic sea surface; and an adjacent facility, fully integrated with the piloted simulator, that simulates the environment inside and "outside" FLYCO.

REALISTIC REPRESENTATION

The representative FLYCO space includes a replica of the LSO workstation looking aft. A widescreen projection system shows a realistic outside world scene: visuals can include a selection of pre-recorded take-offs/recoveries, and/or "live" flights being conducted by the pilot in the adjacent flight simulator.

The first use for the new facility was to support a series of pilot evaluations of the short rolling vertical landing (SRVL) recovery manoeuvre. Designed to significantly increase "bring-back" performance, an SRVL exploits the ability of the F-35B to use vectored thrust to maintain limited forward speed until after touchdown.

SRVL will be part of the forthcoming flying trials, says Blackmore. "It allows us to be more flexible with the way we use the deck, and more flexible in the way we bring our aircraft back because of the performance enhancements it brings."

Earlier this year, the focus of activities at Warton switched to initial preparations for FOCFT and supporting wider operational development. For a week in late March, personnel from Queen Elizabeth’s FLYCO worked together with a team of naval F-35B pilots from the UK's 17 Test and Evaluation Sqn (functioning as LSOs) and an ITF test pilot to develop and practise standard operating procedures for fixed-wing operations.

"This presented a first opportunity to train together and get ready to bring the aircraft on for real this autumn," Blackmore explains. "We plan to come back for a second period of simulator work in June, which will be a more structured ‘rehearsal’.

"This is a really good way of de-risking and understanding that process. In fact, we’ve gone beyond what we’re going to do in the autumn [and have] started to explore what operations will look like once we've fully delivered the capability – so, the ability to operate beyond four aircraft, multiple vertical landings, as well as bringing in the shipborne rolling vertical landing, which is a novel landing manoeuvre we are introducing with QEC.”

Cdr Nathan Gray offers a pilot’s perspective on the Warton simulator. A former Sea Harrier FA2 pilot who subsequently flew the Harrier GR7/9 and, on exchange, the US Marine Corps' Boeing AV-8B Harrier II, he currently serves as a developmental test pilot in the F-35 ITF, and is one of the three UK pilots assigned to the forthcoming FOCFT programme.

"We are just months away from landing the first F-35 on Queen Elizabeth, so it is critical now that we get procedures in place," says Gray. "Although these will be adapted as we go forward and gain a greater understanding of what capabilities we have, we still need that sound foundation of good practice, so we need to make sure that our initial decisions are the right decisions.

"That’s why this simulation facility is a tremendous asset to our programme. When you walk into FLYCO and you see the environment around you – the sea and the motion of the ship – as a maritime aviator, you get that knot in your stomach. You feel like you're at sea.

"From the aircraft standpoint, it's the most realistic simulator that I have ever flown, he says. "It's full motion, with the helmet and full symbology, a highly representative cockpit environment, and the 'outside world' graphics. This is the only simulator-unique facility in the world where we've combined the true F-35 air vehicle model with air wakes from computational fluid dynamics and with ship motion. All three have been brought together and then plugged in with a FLYCO simulator so we can run real-time motion."

BEYOND SIMULATION

Gray believes the UK is now as prepared as it can be to bring the F-35B on board Queen Elizabeth. "The aircraft development programme is complete, we've completed ski-jump testing at Pax River and we have all the learning from the simulation environment here. The test plan has been finalised, [and] we've got the evidence base so that we believe we know where the boundaries are. That said, simulator models can only be trusted so far. So we have to use our intelligent reasoning to slowly progress the flight trials, steadily working outwards from the centre of the envelope."

DT-1 and DT-2 will each amount to about three weeks of flying, with a week of downtime between. "There are going to be days when the weather doesn't support flight testing," notes Gray. “So we have to find very benign conditions in the initial stages, and then as the tests progress, we have to go and find the harsher conditions.

"The biggest constraint will probably be the weather, because it only gets so bad on the east coast. Our challenge will be to predict where those sea states are [and] where we believe we are going to get that ship motion and the wind conditions."

While FOCFT will establish ship clearances for the F-35B, further development and operational testing will be required ahead of the UK declaring initial operating capability (Maritime) at the end of December 2020. A first operational deployment will follow in 2021, with Queen Elizabeth to embark a USMC F-35B squadron alongside aircraft from the UK's Lightning Force.

"To be part of the Carrier Strike programme, and to know that this is our lasting legacy, is very exciting," says Gray. "We’ve got an aircraft and a carrier that will change the way we do business, and the way that the UK can project power."

From several weeks ago.
Project power how far?

[PEI_3721]

gad rag, #5057,

May suggest that you use “ref # 5053 “ instead of quoting the post in full. This takes at lot of thread space and scrolling, which some of us have difficulty with particularly after the software updae..

Similarly for WE B F, (#5053) a simple external link might suffice?

[MightyGem]

and scrolling, which some of us have difficulty with particularly after the software updae.
If you are referring to the continuous scrolling page, you can go back to the original separate pages by going to your User CP(Control Panel), click on Edit Options and then scroll down to find the option to change.

However, once you've changed it, you can't go back.

[Heathrow Harry]

If you are referring to the continuous scrolling page, you can go back to the original separate pages by going to your User CP(Control Panel), click on Edit Options and then scroll down to find the option to change.

However, once you've changed it, you can't go back.

Thanks - most useful!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

UK’s HMS Queen Elizabeth Ship’s crew finally meet the F-35B - US Naval Air Systems Command (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=6826)

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — Members of the flying control and flight deck control teams aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08 ), flagship of the Royal Navy’s new class of aircraft carriers, visited Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland this week for their first live peek at the F-35B Lightning II, ahead of the jet’s first trials aboard the ship this fall.On Tuesday, about 20 members of the HMS Queen Elizabeth team witnessed F-35B test aircraft BF-02 and BF-04 taxi, perform two vertical landings apiece, and conduct a couple short takeoffs. The ground reverberated as each aircraft approached the tarmac for its vertical landings led by the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force team, hovering for several seconds prior to descending.

The next day, the Ship’s team took over and, acting as landing signal officers, taxied an F-35B for the first time. Persistent rain limited the team’s activities on Thursday prior to their Friday departure back to the United Kingdom.In terms of getting his personnel familiar with the F-35B, prior to this fall’s ship trials off the U.S. eastern seaboard, the trip was a success, said Royal Navy Cmdr. James Blackmore, Commander Air aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not so long ago I watched a programme with Johnathan Meades, during which he offered the opinion that the 'Gutter Press' is not produced by people dumbing down, it is actually the best effort of a writer. I wonder if the same could be said for so called defence journalism, and spurious comments that get picked up by uneducated but opinionated members of the public and the politicians they elect. Not so long Madelaine Moon (a defence select committee member) regurgitated the 'carriers without aircraft' line. Where on Earth do these people come from?

Some other carrier related arguments are similar....

No cats and traps means no COD, therefore they cannot be resupplied...

Rotary wing AEW is useless as it cannot fly as high as the E-2 Hawkeye.

Surface ships are sitting ducks.

A carrier will need the entire fleet for close defence.

The carrier cannot do Anti Submarine Warfare and needs lots of frigates.

A ship cannot deal with fires/floods/damage.

All future wars will be hundreds/thousands of miles from the sea.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah....

One of my favourite (NOT) comments is that a carrier is 'just a floating airfield' and 'not a warship'.

Flying operations to/from the deck are far more dependent on the ship's heading, speed, and deck movement than firing a missile - particularly vertically launched missiles with a 360 degree arc of fire. Then after launch they require communications, ATC near the carrier, input from various people in the Operations Room, and to recover the aircraft various landings aids exist. At the same time these all need to coexist with the ship's movement as she moves from x to y, and the need for RAS, training weapon and boat crews, and whole ship awareness of things like FOD, Jet Blast, Tool control, being careful with lighting at night and so on.

The daftness of Mrs Moon was first reported by the UK Defence Journal: The Myth that refuses to die (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/carriers-with-no-aircraft-the-myth-that-refuses-to-die/)

[ORAC]

The irony of WEBF scorning others for expressing views which expose their lack of knowledge relating to defence....

[downsizer]

The irony of WEBF scorning others for expressing views which expose their lack of knowledge relating to defence....

Ohhh, handbags at dawn!

[Haraka]

Ohhh, handbags at dawn!
Come on ORAC, you have to chuckle at that one !

[ORAC]

Why? In view of his limited military background, knowledge and e oerience I consider his scorn of others reprehensible and my comment fair.

[glad rag]

"particularly vertically launched missiles with a 360 degree arc of fire. "

are you intimating that qec are to be thus equipped?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

"particularly vertically launched missiles with a 360 degree arc of fire. "

are you intimating that qec are to be thus equipped?

Not that I know of. I was making the point that aircraft launch and recovery depends on the ship's course and speed far more than launching a missile. Sorry for the delay in replying, I was waiting for Queen Elizabeth to put to sea again.

Update (10/06/18): Queen Elizabeth put to sea this morning.

[RedhillPhil]

H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth currently moored off Penzance. Isles of Scilly ferry "Scillonian II" passing inbound to Penzance for scale comparison. Circa 18.40 Wednesday 13th.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x480/corwall_show_and_stuff_012_1ff24eb5f67ef3b9abea442879ad85602 88fe61c.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

I never thought the first use of the carriers would be against Parti Kenethlegek Kernow - guess it pays to start small and build up to Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng

[idle bystander]

Saw the 2 Chinooks pass over the Suhaili Golden Globe Race BBQ yesterday afternoon. Thought they were coming from Culdrose. Anyway, Kernow can take anything she throws at us for the while!

[ORAC]

The Times: Whoops! No planes to show Trump

Plans to wow Donald Trump with Britain’s newest bit of military kit when he visits the UK next month have been torn up amid fears that he would be underwhelmed by Britain’s ailing armed forces.

Downing Street wanted to show the American president HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier, but the plan has been torpedoed because it has no aircraft yet. Officials feared the sight of Trump’s helicopter landing on an otherwise empty flight deck would provoke ridicule from Trump, who spent the recent G20 summit berating European leaders for their lack of defence spending...... “Trump has 10 major carriers and all of them have a deck full of aircraft,” said one government source. “We can’t take him there. It would be embarrassing.”

The possibility of Trump attending the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford, which runs from July 13 to 15, is now being discussed as an alternative entertainment........

[FODPlod]

The Times: Whoops! No planes to show Trump

Plans to wow Donald Trump with Britain’s newest bit of military kit when he visits the UK next month have been torn up amid fears that he would be underwhelmed by Britain’s ailing armed forces...
This was only ever Daily Fail speculation (wishful thinking?) based on 'a MOD source'. One of the cleaners?

First of RAF’s £9billion stealth fighter fleet to land on new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth during Donald Trump visit in July (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5799027/RAF-9-billion-fleet-land-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Donald-Trump-visit.html)

...Details of the display for Mr Trump have not been revealed, but it is likely to be at Portsmouth, where HMS Queen Elizabeth is based.

An MoD source said: ‘Given that it is Trump, we thought that something a bit macho would be appropriate. But they are American planes, so the Red Arrows could come out to add a more patriotic – and independent – touch.’

As most sensible folk said, it was never going to happen anyway (not least because QNLZ would have sailed for trials the previous month) but that didn't stop it becoming yet another mother lode for the expression of opinionated ignorance.

[ORAC]

My link is from today’s Sunday Times.

Seems to have hit a nerve.....

[glad rag]

This was only ever Daily Fail speculation (wishful thinking?) based on 'a MOD source'. One of the cleaners?

First of RAF’s £9billion stealth fighter fleet to land on new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth during Donald Trump visit in July (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5799027/RAF-9-billion-fleet-land-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Donald-Trump-visit.html)



As most sensible folk said, it was never going to happen anyway (not least because QNLZ would have sailed for trials the previous month) but that didn't stop it becoming yet another mother lode for the expression of opinionated ignorance.


I would refer you to post 5066.

[FODPlod]

My link is from today’s Sunday Times.

Seems to have hit a nerve.....
If you insist on perpetuating spurious stories (wherever published) without questioning them, then fill your boots. I'm sure you have your reasons but it's not my credibility that's being affected. ;)

[ORAC]

A spurious story?

Having hD it reported from two sources 8 am more than willing to believe that a SPAD or civil servant in either the MOD or Foreign Office proposed the idea - and was duly shot down. Or do you believe that the current reputTion of either make it’s unlikely?

[Jimlad1]

https://thinpinstripedline.********.com/2018/06/whoops-sunday-times-publishes-story.html - Fairly comprehensive rebuttal of silly story.

[ORAC]

Having tracked down the article it does not seem to be a rebuttal at all about the truth of the story - merely claiming at one point that it is “not supported by evidence”, as if any such story ever is. The rest seem to be a set of quibbles over whether only the 4 x F-35Bs which have arrived in the UK can count as being “delivered”, the number of US carriers actually currently with air wings embarked etc etc - none of which really impact on the story.

The rest being a general bitch and moan about the way the press report such things rather than printing “good news” stories about the forces - as if there was much good news to print.

And of course a good sulk about why, If originally proposed, the decision was made to cancel, with 3 paragraphs about why Trump would not find such a visit frustrating and a very positive message about the ship could have been delivered.

So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation.

[Jimlad1]

Having tracked down the article it does not seem to be a rebuttal at all about the truth of the story - merely claiming at one point that it is “not supported by evidence”, as if any such story ever is. The rest seem to be a set of quibbles over whether only the 4 x F-35Bs which have arrived in the UK can count as being “delivered”, the number of US carriers actually currently with air wings embarked etc etc - none of which really impact on the story.

The rest being a general bitch and moan about the way the press report such things rather than printing “good news” stories about the forces - as if there was much good news to print.

And of course a good sulk about why, If originally proposed, the decision was made to cancel, with 3 paragraphs about why Trump would not find such a visit frustrating and a very positive message about the ship could have been delivered.

So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation.




Thanks eeyore, you really are a cheery person aren't you!

Thank god not everyone shares your inflated sense of negativity.

[FODPlod]

https://thinpinstripedline.********.com/2018/06/whoops-sunday-times-publishes-story.html - Fairly comprehensive rebuttal of silly story.

https://bit.ly/2JJ14ba

Too many inconvenient facts, Jim. You’ll overload ORAC’s circuits, not to mention his false preconceptions and sensibilities.

Good to see some sensible, well-informed comments, too.

[FODPlod]

…So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation.Cancellation of what?

As even you must have hoisted in by now, this fantasy event was only ever a figment of the Daily Fail’s fertile imagination and was never on the cards in the first place.

[Heathrow Harry]

Ladies & gentlemen

Can you slug this out by private message please?

[glad rag]

Thanks eeyore, you really are a cheery person aren't you!

Thank god not everyone shares your inflated sense of negativity.


Just what is the unrefueled range of the F35B's, that have been "delivered" to the RAF at RAF Marham, Jimlad?

[ORAC]

Just trying to work out the positive spin they’d have given Trump when he arrived on board.

”And we’ll have an operational air wing just as soon as our USMC F-35B squadron flies on Mr President”.......

[Pontius Navigator]

Is it really necessary to republish someone's whole post simply to make a general comment that has no direct connection with anything in thread? Jimlad is not alone in this but it destroys the flow and cut and thrust in the thread.

#5080 (permalink)
Jimlad1's AvatarJimlad1 , 17th Jun 2018 17:49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORAC
Having tracked down the article it does not seem to be a rebuttal at all about the truth of the story - merely claiming at one point that it is “not supported by evidence”, as if any such story ever is. The rest seem to be a set of quibbles over whether only the 4 x F-35Bs which have arrived in the UK can count as being “delivered”, the number of US carriers actually currently with air wings embarked etc etc - none of which really impact on the story.

The rest being a general bitch and moan about the way the press report such things rather than printing “good news” stories about the forces - as if there was much good news to print.

And of course a good sulk about why, If originally proposed, the decision was made to cancel, with 3 paragraphs about why Trump would not find such a visit frustrating and a very positive message about the ship could have been delivered.

So so rather thanseeing of a rebuttal of the story as printed, I see it more as a defensive rebuttal of the reason given for cancellation.


Thanks eeyore, you really are a cheery person aren't you!

Thank god not everyone shares your inflated sense of negativity.

[Pontius Navigator]

ORAC, your comment 're WEBF is a little wide of the mark. He started this thread 12 years ago. Then he may have been seen as naive and ill informed. Today, after 12 years and the informed comments on this thread and others, he is probably better informed than many defence journalists.

[Jimlad1]

ORAC, your comment 're WEBF is a little wide of the mark. He started this thread 12 years ago. Then he may have been seen as naive and ill informed. Today, after 12 years and the informed comments on this thread and others, he is probably better informed than many defence journalists.

I'd concur - WEBF had his moments 12yrs ago - today his diligence to the CVF cause is noteworthy and he has mellowed and matured over time. Cheap jibes like that are not really necessary.

[ORAC]

It was WEBF who was making the cheap jibes about others - I was just pointing out the irony of it.....

[glad rag]

Commons defence committee has pointed out the RN cannot defend the carriers adequately.

Well who'd have thought it.

Q. Why have the capability when you cannot use it unless you rely on other nations to defend your national asset.

Interesting times ahead.

[NutLoose]

I finally caught up and watched the TV programme on the Queen, the 3 parter and one thing struck me, they showed them doing a deck decontam for Nuclear fallout where sprays flood the deck to wash off any contamination. later on they did the same using the system to spray foam in case of a deck fire, they then swept the stuff overboard as it is corrosive and not good for the carrier, I sat there thinking, why on earth do you just not select water again and wash it off instead of spending hours with brushes trying to remove it, it would also flush the pipes..

[Onceapilot]

Well, the report "Beyond 2 Per Cent" makes interesting reading. Seems we are lacking in many areas. :ooh:

OAP

[FODPlod]

To allow people to judge for themselves:

Beyond 2 per cent: A preliminary report on the Modernising Defence Programme (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81802.htm)

[Heathrow Harry]

58.With the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers shortly coming into service, generation of a carrier group will become a priority task for the Royal Navy. In 2017 the Public Accounts Committee was told that a sovereign carrier group at the ‘maximum level’ of deployment would require two air defence destroyers and two ASW frigates, along with an attack submarine and attached support shipping.115 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-101) Generating such a force for any length of time is likely to put considerable strain on the Royal Navy, given the current size of the Fleet.116 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-100) The carriers are likely to be operating within larger allied groups in the future, but we disagree with the National Security Adviser that we should proceed on the basis this is inevitable.117 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-099) Operating aircraft carriers without the sovereign ability to protect them is complacent at best and potentially dangerous at worst. The UK should be able to sustain this capacity without recourse to other states.

59.We have recently reported on the continuing relevance and requirement for amphibious capability, concluding that the disposal of amphibious assault ships—reportedly being considered under the NSCR—was “militarily illiterate”.118 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-098) Written evidence to this inquiry has largely supported these conclusions.119 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-097) The Royal Navy will at some point in the next decade need to consider replacing the amphibious assault ships which are due go out of service in the early 2030s. A landing helicopter dock (LHD) design, combining the ability to operate landing craft and aircraft, should be considered.

[Not_a_boffin]

Commons defence committee has pointed out the RN cannot defend the carriers adequately.

Well who'd have thought it.

Hmmm, that's not what it says. But don't let that get in the way of a good drip.....

[glad rag]

Hmmm, that's not what it says. But don't let that get in the way of a good drip.....


58.With the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers shortly coming into service, generation of a carrier group will become a priority task for the Royal Navy. In 2017 the Public Accounts Committee was told that a sovereign carrier group at the ‘maximum level’ of deployment would require two air defence destroyers and two ASW frigates, along with an attack submarine and attached support shipping.115 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-101) Generating such a force for any length of time is likely to put considerable strain on the Royal Navy, given the current size of the Fleet.116 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-100) The carriers are likely to be operating within larger allied groups in the future, but we disagree with the National Security Adviser that we should proceed on the basis this is inevitable.117 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-099) Operating aircraft carrierswithout the sovereign ability to protect them is complacent at best and potentially dangerous at worst. The UK should be able to sustain this capacity without recourse to other states.


Deary me, chickens coming home to roost.

[FODPlod]

58.With the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers shortly coming into service, generation of a carrier group will become a priority task for the Royal Navy. In 2017 the Public Accounts Committee was told that a sovereign carrier group at the ‘maximum level’ of deployment would require two air defence destroyers and two ASW frigates, along with an attack submarine and attached support shipping.115 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-101) Generating such a force for any length of time is likely to put considerable strain on the Royal Navy, given the current size of the Fleet.116 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-100) The carriers are likely to be operating within larger allied groups in the future, but we disagree with the National Security Adviser that we should proceed on the basis this is inevitable.117 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-099) Operating aircraft carriers without the sovereign ability to protect them is complacent at best and potentially dangerous at worst. The UK should be able to sustain this capacity without recourse to other states.

Taking the cited requirement into account, it appears that the Royal Navy will have more assets to 'defend the carriers adequately' than some realise although more would certainly prove valuable, particularly in any prolonged, wide-ranging conflict against a peer enemy. However, even without the assistance of the USA, our other NATO allies have an abundance of escorts, submarines and support vessels to bring to the party in most imaginable circumstances (it's why we have common practices and train together) and we are highly unlikely to go to war single-handed against any vastly superior force.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1280x1192/rn_fleet_assets_1f5af84ac5c4d621505d67908ec1345822efab4c.jpg

[ORAC]

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/should-hms-queen-elizabeth-be-fitted-with-her-own-missile-defences/

Save the Royal Navy:

“At the time the QEC design was conceived, the RN expected to commission 12 Type 45s and have an escort fleet totalling around 30 vessels. As everyone is now painfully aware, there RN got just 6 Type 45s and its escort fleet is down to 19, with insufficient personnel even to man this modest number. The assumption that QEC will have plenty of escorts to protect her is in tatters. Either pretty much the entire available escort fleet must be dedicated to her protection or we are reliant on foreign escorts with the political limitations and operational challenges that brings.“......

[Not_a_boffin]

58.With the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers shortly coming into service, generation of a carrier group will become a priority task for the Royal Navy. In 2017 the Public Accounts Committee was told that a sovereign carrier group at the ‘maximum level’ of deployment would require two air defence destroyers and two ASW frigates, along with an attack submarine and attached support shipping.115 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-101) Generating such a force for any length of time is likely to put considerable strain on the Royal Navy, given the current size of the Fleet.116 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-100) The carriers are likely to be operating within larger allied groups in the future, but we disagree with the National Security Adviser that we should proceed on the basis this is inevitable.117 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/818/81806.htm#footnote-099) Operating aircraft carrierswithout the sovereign ability to protect them is complacent at best and potentially dangerous at worst. The UK should be able to sustain this capacity without recourse to other states.


Deary me, chickens coming home to roost.

Still not what it says, as FoD Plod points out, but I can't be bothered with a comprehension lesson for you at the minute.

[Frostchamber]

FODPlod is right. With 6 destroyers and 13 frigates, there are enough to escort the carriers. The stated intention is to accompany them with 2xT23 and 2xT45 when in a high risk area. Long term you can expect to be able to deploy about a third of your assets - eg routinely 2xT45 and 4-5 T23. In a crisis you can "surge" in the short term to maybe two thirds - so 4xT45 and 8 or so T23. So yes the RN can escort the carriers, even in high risk areas, and have a couple left over for other things. Factor in the availability of allied assets (expect to see typically a French frigate and a US destroyer added to the group for deployments, and maybe one or two others besides) and things look better still. So it's not true to say we can't escort them.

BUT it's undeniably tight - I'm not saying everything is great, everything is too close to the limits, in common with other areas where numbers are clearly calculated by reference to the minimum needed. Take out some assets due to unforeseen circumstances (eg one of your few SSNs collides with something) and you have problems. There is an opportunity to address some of that that in the current review, especially if some modest increase in funding is secured. OK I accept that may not come about, but at the same time there is more of a political groundswell than I can remember. Committing to 8 T31 frigates (with maybe 3 of them enhanced for ASW duties) for example would be a relatively affordable way of easing the pressure considerably. Not a chance? Well, many confidently predicted there was not a chance of addressing the MPA gap, so let's see.

[Heathrow Harry]

According to todays papers the Treasury saying no more cash for police, education or defence if 20 billion added to NHS..even with tax Inc ease......

[Frostchamber]

Undeniably the runes aren't lining up in the most helpful way. Then again, "the papers are saying" is one thing. I suspect we'll see a smaller increase than what might otherwise have been possible (I can't see how zero will be politically acceptable, whatever the arithmetic says) and some fudge...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

ORAC, your comment 're WEBF is a little wide of the mark. He started this thread 12 years ago. Then he may have been seen as naive and ill informed. Today, after 12 years and the informed comments on this thread and others, he is probably better informed than many defence journalists.

Thanks - or is that damning by faint praise? At least I am better informed than Mrs Moon, and I have never fiddled expenses claims either. Does ORAC have direct experience of everything she posts about? Queen Bee syndrome perhaps?

I am not sure why starting this thread, or inviting learned comments from Not_a_boffin, Engines, orca et al counts as naive, but there we go. As the initial thread starting post notes, I did indeed first read of the future carrier in the media in the summer of 1995 - I think it was Flight International. A few months later I read of what was then JAST, with a V/STOL version for the US Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. Therefore the myth that carrier and aircraft were not considered at the same time is total nonsense. At this time the RN was busy in the Adriatic and the Gulf, and often had a carrier deployed with escorts. So the Navy did know something about escorting a carrier.

So why would I regard this (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/609593-uk-national-security-advisor-questioned.html#post10163341) is anything other than total nonsense?

Rather than considering the carriers as items on their own, they should have been part of a fully integrated project that considered the carrier as the platform, the air assets as the delivery mechanism and the need for protection. If we have have considered these holistically, and I’m not convinced we have in any sense other than accidentally, I’ll be surprised.

The Merlin HM1 was being built at the time, with a role of carrier and frigate/RFA based ASW and ISTAR.

Anyway - through the period of this thread running I have actually been in dark blue, albeit part time. This has led to learning things from people directly involved, such as the chockhead who noted that post Sea Harrier there was less opportunity to have jets on deck and skills were at risk, the Cdr(Air) aboard HMS Illustrious who made a big point of the whole ship nature of shipborne aviation (she had Harriers from IV Sqn RAF (I think) doing fixed wing work ups at the time), then a little over a year before SDSR 10 having a "state of the Navy" brief from two of the fighting arm Command Warrants, with the one for the Fleet Air Arm stating that the plan to get everyone ready to the new carriers and jets was to embark Harriers aboard Illustrious and Ark Royal as often as possible, for longer periods.

More recently I have heard the normal rumours and other things, a lot of which has turned out to be true. I have paid attention to what the Navy has been doing - such as conducting task group deployment (LPD/LPH based - and often using Ocean for what were really carrier roles) and supplying frigates and destroyers to US or French carrier groups, as well as standing deployments and dealing with Geopolitical events.

Then there is the Whole Force Concept.... Some of us are closer to the things discussed than you might think.

Anyway - this morning HMS Queen Elizabeth has returned to Portsmouth after another phase of trials, including the first RAS with RFA Tidespring.

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1010428928350027778

[George K Lee]

WEBF - One could probably state that the genesis for the QE ships was the very rapid evolution in US combat aircraft plans post-Cold War and post-Desert Storm, including the demise of A-12, the invention of all-service STOVL/CTOL/CV fighter concepts by DARPA, Lockheed, Macs and Boeing, and the early-1993 binning of A-X and MRF.

The subsequent emergence of JAST/JSF magically "solved" the Marine/RN problem, which was not just the difficulty of defining a supersonic STOVL Harrier replacement, but the fact that funding such a thing was hard to justify in the Cold War and almost unthinkable after it. I don't think anyone would have been very excited about building new carriers to operate a Harrier III.

Of course, it was purely an accounting gimmick and not a real solution. Developing a stealthy STOVL fighter (including a monster engine you didn't otherwise need) was always going to cost a ****ton of money, but if you rolled that in with the CVs and CTOLs and projected you'd build 4000+ units, the program acquisition unit cost - (R&D + Production)/Units - didn't look ludicrous. Basically, most of the STOVL cost ended up on the USAF and CV Navy tab, which I suppose that (if you are RN or USMC) is as close to an economic miracle as you can get.

[Brat]

Nice to know that miracles still happen.

[Brat]

Ladies & gentlemen

Can you slug this out by private message please?

Why? You have never seem to have shied away from having a go on open Forum

[Heathrow Harry]

Why? You have never seem to have shied away from having a go on open Forum

Too true!!! But I try & avoid personal mud slinging or insults (whatever I mutter under my breath) ;)

[Engines]

WEBF - One could probably state that the genesis for the QE ships was the very rapid evolution in US combat aircraft plans post-Cold War and post-Desert Storm, including the demise of A-12, the invention of all-service STOVL/CTOL/CV fighter concepts by DARPA, Lockheed, Macs and Boeing, and the early-1993 binning of A-X and MRF.

The subsequent emergence of JAST/JSF magically "solved" the Marine/RN problem, which was not just the difficulty of defining a supersonic STOVL Harrier replacement, but the fact that funding such a thing was hard to justify in the Cold War and almost unthinkable after it. I don't think anyone would have been very excited about building new carriers to operate a Harrier III.

Of course, it was purely an accounting gimmick and not a real solution. Developing a stealthy STOVL fighter (including a monster engine you didn't otherwise need) was always going to cost a ****ton of money, but if you rolled that in with the CVs and CTOLs and projected you'd build 4000+ units, the program acquisition unit cost - (R&D + Production)/Units - didn't look ludicrous. Basically, most of the STOVL cost ended up on the USAF and CV Navy tab, which I suppose that (if you are RN or USMC) is as close to an economic miracle as you can get.

George,

I'd like, if I might, to offer a couple of observations on your post. Others might find them of some interest. (or probably not).

Yes, 'one could probably state' all sorts of theories about the genesis of the QE class. The QE class were approved in 1998 by the then UK Labour government. Studies into large carriers were certainly underway in the UK in the late 80s and the early to mid 90s. I'm not sure that you can reliably link the genesis of the QE class to the demise of a US programme in 1993. Where I would (sort of) agree is that by 1995, in large part thanks to the efforts of certain RN officers located in the US, the UK was well aware of what was going on in the US with regard to JSF.

A supersonic STOVL Harrier replacement was certainly defined - I know the guy who wrote the original Naval Staff Target - as to how hard it was, I can't comment. I would wholeheartedly agree that developing an all new aircraft to meet a probable buy of around 65 aircraft for the RN was always going to be a non-starter. By 1995, STOVL JSF was most certainly the 'front runner'. mainly driven by the UK's desire to use its STOVL expertise as a lever to get the best possible deal from the US. (That actually worked to an extent, as it was the reason the UK got its 'Tier 1' status)

However, the 'CVF' Requirements document took some pains to keep STOVL and CV options open from the start, with F/A-18, Rafale and even a non-existent 'navalised Typhoon' listed as possible aircraft.

I do have to gently demur from your assertion that the JSF programme was an 'accounting gimmick'. As I've previously posted, the US DoD made a deliberate decision to push the USAF and USN to adopt a single seat, single engined design solution to their next generation tactical aircraft needs. STOVL made an excellent lever to achieve this, as the technology to make a twin engined STOVL aircraft (I mean here an aircraft with two main propulsion engines, like an F/A-18 or an F-15) din't exist then, and doesn't exist now. The reason that they did this was the massive and costly failures of a number of tactical aircraft programmes over the preceding decade or so (e.g. A-12, ATF, NATF, etc). The common thread that the DoD staff identified was that large (heavy) twin seat twin engined aircraft are always expensive. And the F-22 programme was busy proving the point, even with a single seat. At this range (remember they were having to do this stuff in the early to mid 90s), their logic is understandable. As I've often posted, it's easy to criticise future planning staffs when you have 20/20 (years) hindsight. Their jobs are often terrifyingly hard. What I do know is that, at the time, cost projections for a set of 'next generation' large tactical aircraft to meet USAF, USN and USMC requirements were eye-wateringly high.

Again, as I've posted a number of times, it's clear that the JSF (then F-35) hasn't delivered the cost advantages the DoD sought all those years ago. Reasons why? Many, but my list would include (in approximate chronological order):

1. Underestimates of levels of technical risk, especially in the areas of electrical flying controls and integrated power packs
2. Over optimistic plans - good old optimism bias, common on both sides of the Atlantic. Anyone remember the original ISD for 'Eurofighter'?
3. Failure by LM and the JPO to carry out adequate requirements development after contract award - the top level requirements document (the JORD) was, in my view, pretty good, but LM failed completely to properly decompose those requirements into the comprehensive and detailed set required to drive the design.
4. Failure by LM to control the weight of the aircraft. This was especially difficult to understand, given the fact that the main KPP for the STOVL aircraft explicitly required a light airframe. They got it so wrong that the F-35A and C were also horribly overweight. Putting this right delayed the programme by around 15 months all by itself.
5. Failure (again my LM and JPO) to adequately control and manage the mission systems development. This was compounded by the lack of requirements decomposition (see 2 above) and led to huge rewrites of initial software loads. The situation was compounded by the decision not to build a second mission systems integration rig. The single rig has not been able to provide enough run time to test and clear software in the timescales required.

There are others, but that's my stab - I know others will be able to do better.

The people I know who are working the programme (experienced professionals, and not 'fanboys') are more than happy at the aircrafts' capabilities and performance. They are busy working out the best ways to exploit this capability from the ship, and deliver it reliably and effectively under all conditions. For what little it's worth, they have my vote.

Best Regards as ever to all those doing the long days and nights' work to take UK Naval Aviation into the future,

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

Can only echo Engines' fine post and add that the CVSG(R), CV(R) and CV(F) requirement definition work was all aircraft-agnostic, in that it was not centred around STOVL JSF (or SSF, CALF or other predecessors). While the advantages of the JSF programme in terms of exploiting UK STOVL were acknowledged and it was assumed up until the late 90s that STOVL = smaller, cheaper ship, CTOL and STOBAR options (and variants thereof) were treated as equally valid.

[Bigpants]

Some excellent posts above thank you. I do have a concern, most here seem to think in military terms about projects and accept they take years and along the way are bound to meet problems for a variety of reasons outlined above. Politicians do not think along those time scales and the impression I get is that taxpayers/voters and politicians are losing confidence in the whole idea or way in which the UK hopes to project power and influence.

Many are deeply suspicious of military adventures abroad, do not want to see anymore personnel coming home in a box and are weary of project cost overruns for systems which are viewed as unnecessary or anachronistic. While much of this is directed at Trident, the Carriers and the F35 are perhaps a close second and the comments directed at the MOD this week by the PM suggest she is rather angry or exasperated about demands for more money.

[Davef68]

Can only echo Engines' fine post and add that the CVSG(R), CV(R) and CV(F) requirement definition work was all aircraft-agnostic, in that it was not centred around STOVL JSF (or SSF, CALF or other predecessors).

Indeed, one published RN study for a future aircraft carrier in the late 90s had FA-18E/F and E-2C 'boxes' marked on the hangar plan. Regarding a navalised Typhoon, there was a minor effort by BAE to promote such a thing, including a STOLVL variant, and there was another attempt to sell the same idea to India more recently

It's interesting to note that as early as 1997, it was being rep[orted that the RN's preference was the STOVL version of what was then JSF

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1997/1997%20-%200800.html

[Not_a_boffin]

Ah that brings back memories. RTR Phillips and Malcolm Bird. That article dates from early 97 at a guess, when DNA&FP thought the 40 aircraft ship was a 40000 tonner powered by WR21 (lucky escape!). At that time, people still thought a STOVL ship would be significantly smaller than a CTOL ship -one of the main reasons for the assumed "preference" for STOVL.

It predates the phase in 99-2000 where the deck management aspects were first properly considered, which identified that as you ran more sorties with more realistic packages and flypros, the size driver ceased to be aircraft launch and recovery mode and tended towards deck park size. An effect compounded when you looked at minimising deck moves between launch and recovery events, which means you don't need as many chockheads. It included quite a bit of work/cross-pol with the NavAir chaps at Lakehurst.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This week, training and preparations have continued with Exercise Crimson Flag, with RN helicopters testing their ability to counter submarine and surface threats, as well as a 736 NAS Hawk playing the part of a F-35B in countering an air threat, directed by the venerable Sea King ASACS (doing what will soon be the Crowsnest) role:

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1011542925648498688

As for day four:

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1012424824105381888

Wildcat were tasked to defeat small vessels attacking @HMSStAlbans (https://twitter.com/HMSStAlbans) under the control of a Sea King helicopter, who was also controlling a Hawk simulating an F-35. Such sorties will be used to develop Task Group protection tactics.

Task Group protection - the carrier protects the entire task force as part of a defence in depth approach. Some seem to think a carrier only protects herself - WRONG.

[Just This Once...]

Are you seriously suggesting that the F-35's role is to provide CAPs for a task force?

Short legs, no AAR, limited AEW and low aircraft numbers make an uncomfortable 24 hour defensive capability for a UK TF. The USN can do it but our capability falls considerably short of the mark.

The UK's vision is for carrier-enabled strike - aka floating airfield. It requires other ships to provide defence for it. Using an F-35 to provide defence against small boats is equally questionable.

[Heathrow Harry]

Are you seriously suggesting that the F-35's role is to provide CAPs for a task force?

Short legs, no AAR, limited AEW and low aircraft numbers make an uncomfortable 24 hour defensive capability for a UK TF. The USN can do it but our capability falls considerably short of the mark.

The UK's vision is for carrier-enabled strike - aka floating airfield. It requires other ships to provide defence for it. Using an F-35 to provide defence against small boats is equally questionable.


That's the problem - once they are out there do you expect the SO in charge of the Carrier Group to sacrifice CAP cover, however limited, over strike? It's a multi Bn quid ship, named after the Head of State and Flagship of the Navy..... They will totally prioritise its defence at the cost of anything & everything else

PS I'm not a fan of the Carriers but even so they cost around £ 7 Bn to build and have 1600 crew on board - that's a lot to risk without ensuring they are kept reasonably out of harms way in normal ops... Think of the Falklands and "Burma Star" Woodward.... and he had TWO platforms

[KelvinD]

I wonder how much of the cost of these carriers includes a religious element?
Watching HMS Queen Elizabeth returning to Portsmouth recently, I was struck by this apparition at the leading edge of the ski jump:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin//details.php?image_id=26010)
And a close up of the same bloke:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin//details.php?image_id=26013)
I couldn't figure out if he was a vicar or a mullah!

[Pontius Navigator]

I see that improvements are to be made to the F35a to encourage the UK to consider buying it.

With 48 B on order and further buy being questioned might the UK opt for a type split?

[glad rag]

I wonder how much of the cost of these carriers includes a religious element?
Watching HMS Queen Elizabeth returning to Portsmouth recently, I was struck by this apparition at the leading edge of the ski jump:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin//details.php?image_id=26010)
And a close up of the same bloke:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin//details.php?image_id=26013)
I couldn't figure out if he was a vicar or a mullah!

lol maybe he can "ward off" BrahMos by getting his dick out?

Seems to be a recurring theme amongst fanboys when confronted by the salient facts!

Carry On!!

[ETOPS]

Looking forward to the Royal Navy's version of this video from China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9MbRjbKWj4&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9MbRjbKWj4&feature=youtu.beL)

Love the "Doctor Evil" style minions deck crew ranked in colour order.

PS Why no film of the J-15s landing on?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are you seriously suggesting that the F-35's role is to provide CAPs for a task force?

Short legs, no AAR, limited AEW and low aircraft numbers make an uncomfortable 24 hour defensive capability for a UK TF. The USN can do it but our capability falls considerably short of the mark.

The UK's vision is for carrier-enabled strike - aka floating airfield. It requires other ships to provide defence for it. Using an F-35 to provide defence against small boats is equally questionable.


I am suggesting the role of carrierborne F-35Bs will depend on the situation, the threat level, what other joint and coalition assets are available, what other priorities exist, and so on. Are you saying no carrierborne F-35B will fly a air defence sortie? Ever? Really? For once we have a truly multirole aircraft. I think the role of the F-35B and other aircraft may well vary from day to day.

Short legs? Compared to what - certainly it has longer legs than previous RN aircraft. Surely the point about air defence is the enemy aircraft come to you? No AAR? Although the new unmanned thing might be different, traditionally carrier aircraft have been refueled by land based tankers, with carrier based aircraft providing fuel for aircraft that miss the wire and need to go around again. Limited AEW? The most important thing is to detect low fliers, which a radar x thousand above sea level can do, we will also have RAF AWACS support in most cases. Low aircraft numbers? Everything I have seen has suggested a figure of 24 jets as routine, and a maximum number of 36, in addition to a full complement of Merlins. Someone else can do the arithmetic.

Naval/maritime task groups need air defence - by aircraft, otherwise the attacker has the advantage of being able to fire anti ship missiles at range, being able to stay just outside of missile range and cause problems, or threatening helicopter operations. There is such a thing as defence in depth.

Last time I looked the term was Carrier Enabled Power Projection and that includes more than just flying strike missions, it includes other task group activities such as amphibious operations, long range Anti Submarine Warfare, and others. It might even include protecting seaborne logistics for Army or RAF operations.

Who mentioned using the F-35B against small boats?

That's the problem - once they are out there do you expect the SO in charge of the Carrier Group to sacrifice CAP cover, however limited, over strike? It's a multi Bn quid ship, named after the Head of State and Flagship of the Navy..... They will totally prioritise its defence at the cost of anything & everything else

PS I'm not a fan of the Carriers but even so they cost around £ 7 Bn to build and have 1600 crew on board - that's a lot to risk without ensuring they are kept reasonably out of harms way in normal ops... Think of the Falklands and "Burma Star" Woodward.... and he had TWO platforms

Do you ever think the level of defence will be dictated by the threat level on a given day, what other assets are in theatre, and so on. What if the priority that day is something other than the ground attack sortie rate?

Your comment about Woodward is contemptible. Remind me - did we win that war?

[Heathrow Harry]

WEBF
I was actually agreeing with you more or less. On the day a judgement has to be made as to relative threats and targets and I'm sure the F35 force will fly quite a lot of CAP in some areas.

Woodward? He was criticised at the time and since for staying well east of the FI............

[Jabba_TG12]

Damn right, the defence of the carrier itself will be at the top of the priority list. Anyone who seriously thinks otherwise needs their bumps felt. There is no way that the current generation of political and military leadership are going to let that thing even remotely close to Air To Surface missile range of anything. During Corporate, Woodward had damn good reason to keep the carriers as far out of the way as he could.

Cant help but think that there are some of the True Believers, who are so determined for this particular solution to succeed in everything they project onto it, despite questions and shortcomings at many levels being raised by the rest of us heretics; But of course, if the day ever comes that they end up picking bits of it up off the ocean floor because of an unforseen/unexpected calamity, the temptation to say "we told you so" might be hard to suppress.

For what its worth, I cant help but feel this entire carrier project from inception to delivery has been a Pork Barrel triumph of industrial strategy over strategic requirements and defence requirements.... but what the hell do I know...?

[Engines]

Perhaps I could offer some thoughts that might help this thread.

One of the main things any carrier borne air group has to do is to react to changing circumstances. These will change as the ship changes its' position, as events change around it (and its task group) and as the opponent does their thing. If you look at almost any air group on larger carriers, you would see a variety of roles and capabilities. And beyond that, air groups are often 'tailored' or adapted to meet the needs of a deployment. Even on smaller carriers like the 'Invincible' class, the ability of aircraft to launch in a 'swing role' configuration gave them the ability (albeit limited) to offer a range of capabilities to the theatre commanders at short notice.

So, I'd suggest that any deployed F-35B wing will be required to carry out a range of jobs as the circumstances demand. I'd suggest that the obvious ones would be offensive strike missions, counter-air missions, either over the fleet or over the strike battle space, and what us old guys would call 'reconnaissance' - finding out what's going on further out from the fleet. It won't be 'only strike' or 'only CAP'. These are 'just an old retired guy's suggestions, probably couched in the wrong terminology. I apologise for that. I hope I don't come across as a 'True Believer'.

It's worth repeating that no carrier has been successfully attacked, damaged or sunk since WW2. One reason is that using Air to Surface (Air to Sea?) missiles is not that straightforward when you have to find the damn thing first. Then you meed a missile that can get a lock on a moving target. Getting through the outer defences of a modern Task Group isn't exactly a walk in the park either. Those destroyer have some very serious missiles. I'm not saying for one moment that it can't be done, or it won't be done. But whichever way you look at it hitting a land base has to be easier. Yes, I know, you can launch from bases that are (hopefully) well out of harms' way (darn those longer range missiles, eh?)- but then you end up burning hundreds of hours flight time to get limited time over target. Might work politically (seen to be 'contributing' etc.) but militarily not so effective. getting closer to the target without the need for Host Nation Support (which has, time and time again, been denied ) has to be a plus, in my view. The original SDR98 is still available on line. It's not the worst bit of reasoning I've seen.( But then, I'm probably just a 'True Believer').

One final thing. Carriers are not floating airfields. Yes, I know even some senior dark blue types use the phrase, but it's not true, accurate, or useful. Generating 'air power' from a deck (whatever the size) in bad weather, at night, demands a particular skill set, a fully worked up ship, and aviators with a particular set of attitudes and assumptions, plus a grim determination to make it work. Fortunately, the UK has a good track record of doing that.

Best Regards as ever to the new wave of naval aviators, of all uniform colours and all aircraft types -

Engines

[Onceapilot]

Oh Dear!
Looks like the USA are getting worried about the UK defence budget. According to BBC, Gen Mattis has briefed concern that the UK will not be a good partner to the USA unless our defence budget is increased. Sounds like our credit just ran out?

OAP

[LowObservable]

"It's worth repeating that no carrier has been successfully attacked, damaged or sunk since WW2."

Or, to quote the Army-Navy football game program from November 29, 1941...

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1633x1179/arizona_0a36d54dd1f21b509f9f20a7a6e662292f5ea4f6.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

HH

Who was it who criticised Woodward? Ignorant fools like Max Hastings?

Woodward conserved the fighting power of his two carriers and aircraft until the real battle he knew was coming - the landings in the face of determined air attacks. This was the critical part of the campaign, so doing so was prudent, considering the limitations the task group faced such as having no AEW, Sea Harrier with limited radar and fuel/weapon loads, Type 42 destroyers with old radars (and Argentina had T42s and could practice lobe pecking), only two Sea Wolf armed frigates being part of the task group, no CIWS.... What sense would it have made to risk losing the war being the amphibious group was there to put the troops ashore?

When the landing came, the carriers moved inshore and both Type 22s escorted the troop carriers into San Carlos water. Hermes had ventured close to the islands to support the SAS raid on Pebble Island before then, Invincible had been to the east of the islands on a special mission. Accusing Woodward or his ships' companies of lacking courage or whatever is not on.

Not only did he know about countering the threat from the Belgrano, he was also able to deal with the submarine threat, and fend off the air threat and conserve his ships and aircraft for the landings, during with the Argentines lost something like fifty aircraft in a few days, which broke their back as a fighting force. He also had to conserve ships and aircraft to support the troops after the landings. We won - remember!

Jabba

What about amphibious forces and the like? Will they be allowed near Air to Surface Missile range? Do you think a task group is better or worse defended with a carrier against air, submarine, and surface threats? Please explain you answer.

Engines

Thanks for that - I cannot understand why people struggle with that.

On other forums (fora?) when carrier topics have cropped up those who have worn dark blue and served in any kind of warship seem to have an understanding of all the parts of ship involved in aviation. An awful lot of sailors play very key roles in making it happen, in different departments aboard the carrier.

[Heathrow Harry]

Oddly it was NAVY friends and acquaintances that criticised Woodward - they felt he'd grossly underestimated the air threat from Day 1 (his initial briefings were especially dismissive I understand) and then panicked and pulled the T22's out to defend the carriers and moved eastward as well - thus exposing the other ships to attack. He wasn't that popular with his subordinates I believe and the Army felt he never listened to their concerns - which is probably one reason he missed out finally on the very top jobs. He did win - and that's all you can reasonably want from a General/Admiral - there are others who would have made a complete Horlicks of it - but that doesn't mean to say he was perfect or that he should never be criticised.

The Army had one or two SO'c who really didn't perform either - but compared to the opposition.........................

[ORAC]

Who was it who criticised Woodward? Ignorant fools like Max Hastings? Now, as I was saying about irony.

Having been present with the task task force during the Falklands War and interviewed all the major commanders both naval and army who were present I think it fair to say Sir Max Hastings is more than entitled to his views and able to defend them both personally and based on their views - unlike those bsing their opinions on books on a war which took place either before they were born or were at best in nappies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hastings

[Davef68]

"It's worth repeating that no carrier has been successfully attacked, damaged or sunk since WW2."


USNS Card anyone? :-)

[FODPlod]

Now, as I was saying about irony.

Having been present with the task task force during the Falklands War and interviewed all the major commanders both naval and army who were present I think it fair to say Sir Max Hastings is more than entitled to his views and able to defend them both personally and based on their views - unlike those bsing their opinions on books on a war which took place either before they were born or were at best in nappies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hastings

I suggest you are much more careful about describing his critics.

This is the same gung-ho Max Hastings who, at his typically blinkered, fiercely pro-Army anti-everything-else worst, labelled the Royal Navy as cowardly for not starting a shooting match (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230314/A-cowardly-Navy-cautious-SAS-Britains-humiliation-pirate-rabble.html) with Somali pirates holding hostages at gunpoint on board a yacht bobbing about on the ocean. He even got that wrong because it was a Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker on the scene, not a warship.

Having 'liberated' Port Stanley single-handed, he has conveniently forgotten which service delivered him to the Falklands and fought and died to protect him en route. Yet strangely, he sees little or no role for maritime capability, aircraft carriers, air superiority, CASD or much else the RN (or the RAF for that matter) has to offer. His eyes are firmly fixed on 'boots on the ground' to the exclusion of all else required to prepare the ground for them, deliver them, protect them, sustain them in theatre and provide them with vital intelligence.

[Not_a_boffin]

I think to be fair, he took agin the navy when told he couldn't have his own cabin or file his despatches over Satcom whenever he wanted.

But in any case, could we please re-inter Op Corporate? Not particularly relevant to this thread.

[Jabba_TG12]

HH

Jabba

What about amphibious forces and the like? Will they be allowed near Air to Surface Missile range? Do you think a task group is better or worse defended with a carrier against air, submarine, and surface threats? Please explain you answer.



Different ball game, is it not? Amphibs are only capital ships if/when you have no carriers... such as the last 5-7 years after the naval heirarchy sold the farm in order to pay for/justify the carriers. Not that I see a huge amount of protest from most dark blue afficionados and former service colleagues about the swords of Damocles being swung by the Treasury over the heads of the amphibious community.

Rightly or wrongly, I see the BG or TG part of "Carrier Battle Group" or "Carrier Task Group" as being the parts that protect the key force multiplier in the package, specifically the Carrier itself. I have concerns, ill founded they may be, but concerns nonetheless, that the size of the current fleet over the next decade, maybe even slightly longer, will be such that a meaningful CBG or CTG that could, if necessary operate independently of its allies (ie, should another Corporate occur) and be able to be part of a viable solution. FF's DDGs, SSN's are all there to protect the key force multiplier from surface/sub-surface and air threats as best they can, particularly when operating at extreme range away from the kind of land based LRMPA/AEW resources that in the European or North Atlantic or near East environments may be taken relatively for granted.

One or two T45's that cant sail in warm water, that spend 80% of their year tied up alongside, Astute's that park themselves on sandbanks and a Future Frigate package that is still some way off does not exactly fill one full of confidence if the balloon goes up. I maintain my position that the carrier project has been politically successful in many respects and from an engineering/contractor/business/industrial/BAE perspective, as has the F35 project. Lots of other equally valuable projects and capabilities have been sacrificed on the altar to ensure that this project stayed alive and the same can be said of Typhoon as well, where numerous other capabilities were neglected in order to protect the pet-projects of TPTB.

Whether the carrier project has truly met the real strategic requirements of what the forces really need, is another matter and one that only time will tell. I just dont see the validity of indulging in the kind of flagwaving about how wonderful the kit is when there is no real job for it to do and a reticence at a political level to project power any other way than through either the implied threat of Trident or through the bounteous output of DFID....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

HH

I wonder what the intelligence briefings said? More importantly, task group operations (outside the NATO area) including using carrier aircraft as a task group weapon, had not been exercised in the years before 1982. As such they (CTG and staff) had to learn under fire. There is a wider point here - frequently the Armed Forces (and others) will have to do things for which they are not fully rehearsed, as such they need to innovate and adapt. Inevitably, things go wrong. Scapegoating is not only unfair but it prevents learning and adapting.

Woodward could easily have lost the war. He did not.

ORAC

Do you feel Sir Max Hastings is entitled to his other views - like about the RAF and fighter aircraft no longer being needed? Typhoon being a waste of money, perhaps?

You seem very keen to dismiss the education, training, service, employment etc of those who disagree with you. Learning things as part of an Engineering degree - does that count? Or learning things from publications starting with BR, JDP, ATP and so on? Or working in a joint service HQ environment? Being aboard a CVS during a period of fixed wing flying?

Perhaps you are unaware of the Whole Force Concept?

Who are these people?

https://twitter.com/RNReserve/status/1011999656988102656

Yes I did get the e-mail, but it was not for me - I am looking at other things.... I wonder if there are other things Reservists do to directly support the RN, including task group operations and exercises?

Jabba

I have no idea where to start with that! LPDs are not capital ships if we have a carrier? To be honest I am not sure what the definition is, but one full of bootnecks needs defending no? So is a LPD (and LSD(A) and so on) better defended with or without a carrier? Is she a high value unit?

Not_a_ boffin will be able to tell you what is wrong with the rest of your post. Or maybe you could try looking at the Royal Navy website to see the sorts of things ships have been doing. You might even read a news story like this (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/july/03/180703-royal-navy-hands-over-command-of-nato-task-group-in-portugal). Or perhaps look at when we have tried to do a carrier role - such as commanding TF50 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/november/26/161126-royal-navy-leads-us-task-force-50), or the Exercise Deep Blue (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/july/20/160820-hms-ocean), without a carrier (as such)?

There have been suggestions that if it were not for the carriers, SDSR 10 would have cut frigate/destroyer numbers even more.

[Heathrow Harry]

"I wonder what the intelligence briefings said? "

if there is one thing everyone agrees on it's that British Intelligence knew absolutely nothing about the Argentinean armed forces and about their tactics

It had never been on the radar

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From UK Defence Journal: Royal Navy pilot hails 'unique simulator' supporting first of class F-35 flight trials (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-pilot-hails-unique-simulator-supporting-first-of-class-f-35-flight-trials/)

I still think the integration facility should be named after Captain Eric Brown. And the one thing that cannot be simulated is the noise, jet blast, etc of jets on deck.

Also there is a FTRS(FC) post at FOST for a Lt/Lt Cdr Fixed Wing WAFU - amongst all the other FTRS jobs (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/useful-resources/ftrs/ftrs-vacancy.pdf).

[sandiego89]

USNS Card anyone? :-)

I've actually seen a few people (on here likely) cite the frogman attack on the CARD to prove the "vulnerability" of the modern carrier. Not to take anything away from the sappers, but the CARD was just an old ferry at the time, and moored in downtown Saigon.

[Heathrow Harry]

I've actually seen a few people (on here likely) cite the frogman attack on the CARD to prove the "vulnerability" of the modern carrier. Not to take anything away from the sappers, but the CARD was just an old ferry at the time, and moored in downtown Saigon.


and .the carriers will be in sunny Portsmouth...... tho you'd have to plan a long way ahead on the basis you .MIGHT want to take them out in the future... seems unlikely but I guess it wouldn't cost much

[WE Branch Fanatic]

HH

Have you ever thought that the RN might have an understanding of these sorts of threats and worked on ways of dealing with them?

Back to reality and the present: this was on the MOD section of the the gov.uk website the other day: QEC ship air integration (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/qec-ship-air-certification)

We also have more programmes by Chris Terill to look forward to:

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1020633793756123136

It will great to see jets on deck again.

[Heathrow Harry]

If the MoD are going to investigate every dodgy looking person in Portsmouth & Gosport they're going to be very very busy.................. job for life I'd have thought.....

Tho it wouldn't have to be very sophisticated - sink a ship in the narrow channel off the Round Tower - it's only 220 m across

[glad rag]

"Have you ever thought that the RN might have an understanding of these sorts of threats and worked on ways of dealing with them?"

Actually HH makes a highly valid point.

The RN has considerable history of only hearing what it
wants to hear.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Have you ever thought that the RN might have an understanding of these sorts of threats and worked on ways of dealing with them?"

Actually HH makes a highly valid point.

The RN has considerable history of only hearing what it
wants to hear.

regretfully that applies to many organisations - it's just more obvious (and disastrous) when the Military are caught out

Looking through military history it's a common thread that about 6-12 months after a war starts there is a root & branch clear out of SO's and the new men are a generation plus younger...... the skill sets needed to advance in peace time is rarely the one you need when the balloon goes up.

[ORAC]

And the rest of the surface fleet continues to disappear to enable the carrier plans of the admirals to continue........

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/contest-to-build-a-budget-frigate-on-hold-as-mod-runs-out-of-funds-wgvvkq0p3

Contest to build a ‘budget frigate’ on hold as MoD runs out of funds

Government plans to buy a “budget frigate” within five years have been thrown into chaos after a competition to build the warship was suspended amid a funding crisis. Sources warned last night that the Type 31e frigate may never materialise. It is a serious blow for the Royal Navy, which needs at least five of the ships to maintain the size of its surface fleet.

Shipbuilders and yards in the running for the £1.25 billion contract were taken by surprise when the Ministry of Defence announced the freeze on Friday, just as they prepared to finalise their respective ship designs. Defence Equipment and Support, the branch of the MoD in charge of buying kit, claimed that there had not been enough “compliant bids”. Industry insiders disputed this, saying that a failure by Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, to secure new money by the summer to fund his ambitions for the armed forces had thrown into doubt a range of equipment contracts.

They noted that bidders for the frigate work had been waiting to receive funding from the MoD to start the competitive design phase. This should have happened by May, with initial construction targeted for next spring. Instead there was silence then the freeze. The MoD said that the competition would be restarted soon but sources said that the delay would probably be at least a year, undermining a plan to deliver the first of the new ships by 2023.

Defence experts agreed. “It is cloud-cuckoo-land,” Admiral Lord West of Spithead, a former head of the Royal Navy, said. Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said: “It’s impossible.” Paul Beaver, a defence analyst, said: “It has taken three years to get to a point where they appear to need to start again. This is not smart procurement.”......

Aside from the question of funding, it is understood that officials at Defence Equipment and Support were starting to realise that a cheap warship without the array of expensive radars, sensors and weapons would struggle to operate in submarine-infested waters. During Sir Michael Fallon’s time as defence secretary a funding shortage for the equipment programme worsened, scuppering plans to buy a full fleet of 13 more sophisticated but expensive Type 26 frigates. Instead he signed off on a 2015 plan to purchase eight Type 26 frigates and five cheaper versions.

A failure by the MoD to secure new warships into service by 2023 will leave the Royal Navy without 13 operational frigates as the ageing Type 23 warships start to be brought out of service.

A spokeswoman for the MoD said: “This is an early contract in a wider procurement process and we will incorporate the lessons learnt and begin again as soon as possible so the programme can continue at pace.”

[Heathrow Harry]

So all the talk of more money is again just smoke and mirrors

they really are a disgrace

[brakedwell]

Not sure they will be needed. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales will have to go if we get a hard brexit.

[sandiego89]

..."Aside from the question of funding, it is understood that officials at Defence Equipment and Support were starting to realise that a cheap warship without the array of expensive radars, sensors and weapons would struggle to operate in....."



The US seems to have come to the same conclusion with the Littoral Combat Ship. Surprise, surprise, a ship with minimal sensors and weapons turns out to be not much of a warship...who would of thought that??? :bored:

[Frostchamber]

All things are possible but we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves by jumping to conclusions that fit the prevailing PPruNe narrative. I'm going to wait and see what happens next.

[tucumseh]

Probably misleading to finger DE&S. The alleged issues frequently arise from decisions outwith their control. Non-compliancies in bids don't halt the process in the manner described. Last time I was told to freeze a tender and give all bidders bad news, it was due to political lobbying to award the contract to a non-bidder, in a Defence Minister's constituency. Six months later, we were told to contract that company, and to freeze for a further six months to allow them to read the specs and work out what to do.

[Not_a_boffin]

In this case, unfortunately it is partly right to finger DE&S. Although the "requirement / budget" envelope has been set elsewhere, DE&S have managed to get themselves to a position where one bid is broadly what they asked for, price-wise, but light capability-wise, whereas the other is capability heavy, but also reassuringly expensive, not least because of its build strategy. Lord alone knows what the Boxhead team came up with, but given the paucity of UK build yards outside the two Brit teams, they're probably knackered price-wise as well. There is probably a way through this, if only MoD had sufficient technical and commercial capability to assess such disparate bids. What a shame they completely managed to stuff up the advice-side contracts a year ago.

Oh - and those who would blame this on "the carriers", ought to have a good long look at where the budget lines are that are actually eating all the money. Not holding my breath they'll understand it though....

[tucumseh]

NaB
Thanks. As you say, requirement/budget is set elsewhere. From what you say, it looks like DE&S may have just acted as a post office. You either go back to DEC and say sort out your requirement/budget; or you ignore DEC and prepare a 'clarification paper', which effectively amends the requirement into something that makes sense and doesn't defy the laws of physics.
This sounds rather like the Chinook Mk3 fiasco. A simple requirement to buy X of a known build standard; then someone splits it in two, but doesn't provide the necessary resources to manage two separate programmes. Chinook had the original team doing the top-up buy, and some poor sod given Mk3 to do in his spare time. Very similar. Poor requirements setting and a budget that took no account of development, etc.

[Not_a_boffin]

Trouble is, it isn;t a requirement to buy a known standard. It's a requirement to buy five ships for a fixed budget. Which may (allegedly) have been the brain child of a certain senior sundodging dabber in NCHQ, who swore blind it was possible and even got an industry stalwart to say so in a certain paper. That's the requirement end.

On the procurement end, you have a PT that has (allegedly) already voided an advice-side contract competition through literal incompetence. That end of the M4 also has another sundodger in a senior role who may also have unwittingly influenced the technical direction of travel of one team to a place that was unaffordable. So you have (and this is speculation) one bid that is price compliant but capability deficient, one that is capability heavy, but busts the budget and a third bid that has no feasible UK procurement route. So you've got three wildly different options which todays team are ill-equipped to deal with. Result? It's all a bit difficult......

Which could have (and was) seen coming some time ago. Moral of the story? Gobby sundodgers should be limited to sundodging. Not shipbuilding policy.

[tucumseh]

five ships for a fixed budget

Not a good sign. I was given a requirement once by the Army, with a fixed budget. The technical spec was actually rather good. The RS knew what they wanted in wiggly amps terms, and the precise cost of each. But they left out the quantity. Which was irrelevant because the budget they'd endorsed couldn't even buy one, never mind equip whole regiments. At their One Star Screening the budget was further cut, and a note added that the ISD had been brought forward to 3 weeks from that day. In other words, shut up and tell them we want it for nothing. It was very odd trying to explain Primary 1 arithmetic and the concept (obligation) of Planning Blight to a room full of Colonels and Brigadiers.

[Not_a_boffin]

There is a technical term for that sort of arithmetic sleight of hand. I believe it's called "magicking the beans". Rogers Profanisaurus describes it quite well.....

Quite prevalent in some areas of Capability and RP.

[Heathrow Harry]

Nothing wrong with a fixed budget- that's how most of the world works

you just have to fit your tasking to what you can afford... a rather revolutionary idea for SO's and politicians of course.....

[Frostchamber]

Nothing wrong with a fixed budget- that's how most of the world works

you just have to fit your tasking to what you can afford... a rather revolutionary idea for SO's and politicians of course.....


That's true, the conundrum being striking a balance between what you judge you can afford (bearing in mind also that "affordability" reflects how you regard competing priorities, so it's not an absolute) and what the threat actually requires, which may not be the same thing. If I judge that i can only afford three quarters of a roof on my house, I am going to get wet (if it ever rains again).

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Does anyone know what has happened to our Australian shipmate SpazSinbad? Here is another of his informative PDF files:http://www.f-16.net/forum/styles/we_universal/imageset/icon_topic_attach.gif SKI JUMP INFO VARIOUS Jun 2015 pp151.pdf (http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21005&sid=c1ef502737c24f1a0227411a19cdc29f)

[Captain Dart]

I recall that he had a rather bitter exchange with another poster, so I assume that he ‘bingoed’ and is now ‘feet dry’.

[peter we]

Does anyone know what has happened to our Australian shipmate SpazSinbad? Here is another of his informative PDF files:http://www.f-16.net/forum/styles/we_universal/imageset/icon_topic_attach.gif SKI JUMP INFO VARIOUS Jun 2015 pp151.pdf (http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21005&sid=c1ef502737c24f1a0227411a19cdc29f)
Hes still active here.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/a-royal-navy-new-carrier-update-t11767-s4420.html

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It seems to have become popular in some places to decry carriers and particularly our ones as being ultra vulnerable, or to claim that little effort has been put into making them able to cope with damage, or that new threats such as asymmetric attack have been ignored.

Hopefully this article, compiled from open source information, will reassure some people.

HMS Queen Elizabeth - built to survive (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabeth-built-to-survive/)

[Heathrow Harry]

Trouble is even a small amount of damage renders them unusable for some time.. and when you only have one in service at a time.......

[SamYeager]

Trouble is even a small amount of damage renders them unusable for some time.. and when you only have one in service at a time.......

Of course land bases are available in a few hours even if bombed to hell. :rolleyes: Mind you land bases also suffer from being in the same (known) place.

[Bing]

Trouble is even a small amount of damage renders them unusable for some time.. and when you only have one in service at a time.......

Examples? I can think of times when serious damage rendered some unusable for some time, but 'a small amount of damage'?

[glad rag]

It seems to have become popular in some places to decry carriers and particularly our ones as being ultra vulnerable, or to claim that little effort has been put into making them able to cope with damage, or that new threats such as asymmetric attack have been ignored.

Hopefully this article, compiled from open source information, will reassure some people.

HMS Queen Elizabeth - built to survive (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabeth-built-to-survive/)

In a previous article, we looked at the active layers of protection that will surround HMS Queen Elizabeth, on a piece of paper.

"Much of the protection incorporated in the Alpha design did not feature in the Delta, although a basic level may have been retained."

Basically, we don't have any defences, but the damage control is GREAT.

Not really good enough matey. Don't sink the ship for a hath'p'orth of tar...

If only we had bought the "C", think of those lovely trackers way up there at 30K plus as a side serving..

[Obi Wan Russell]

Big Liz will sail for the USA tomorrow evening (Saturday 18th) at 6pm.

This is RUMOUR CONTROL, and here are the facts:

WESTLANT18 - WHAT'S IT ABOUT & WHAT'S HAPPENING?

WESTLANT18 is the deployment title given to the imminent (longer than) 3 month deployment of HMS QE to the Eastern seaboard of the USA and other nearby areas to continue trials associated with both the Ship's capabilities and also to operate with the F35B for the first time on clearance trials. These trials using the F35B are also as much about the Ship's crew learning to operate the F35B and what detailed Ship’s procedures and limits need to be applied. Its about ship/air integration as much as the clearance of the F35B itself to use the QE class.
Remember this is not an operational deployment as the Ship and its air wing types are still in transition to clear, develop and train for the full operational capability in accordance with he MoD's Master UK CEPP Transition plan.
Here is some top level information about WESTLANT18 and some of the timetable as yet available.

The QE is believed to be escorted to the US by 1 T23 frigate (HMS Montrose) and 1 RFA Tide class FR Tanker

PRINCIPLE DEPLOYMENT TASKS:
1) Carry out First of Class F35B Flying Trials (Phase One in 2 parts - DT-1 and DT-2). There is a separate Group file available on the detail of the F35 trials.
2) Carry out hot and humid climate/warm water ship performance and reliability trials
3) Carry out UK Defence Diplomacy Activities - including visits to USN bases, the port of New York, and other ports as yet to be announced
4) Deliver or recover UK resources and equipment associated with a combined and joint (overland) UK/US exercise.

DEPLOYING & JOINING UNITS
In addition to the standard operating crew, elements of the UK CSG HQ and additional UK military observers.

INTIAL ITINERARY
The following itinerary is understood (although precise dates are not yet available publicly, partly due to security considerations.
1) Depart UK 18 Aug 18 as readiness permits, and load remaining elements (820 & 845NAS) off Cornwall
2) Proceed direct to USN Mayport, Florida for several days berthed.
3) Proceed 2nd week of Sept to Caribbean Waters for hot weather and warm sea water ship trial. (It is not yet known if the QE will approach or berth at any British or other islands during this week long period)
4) Proceed to USN Base Norfolk, Virginia for shore leave and pre-F35B FOCFT preparations and loading.
5) Carry out DT-1 FOCFT - First landings and take off trials of F35B from the QE class - planned to start during last week of September for 3 weeks. It is understood the first F35B landing on HMS QE will occur on 22 Sep 18 all relevant factors being aligned.
6) Visit New York
4) Carry out DT-2 F35B FOCFT for 3 weeks late Oct/early Nov
5) Return to USN Base Norfolk to reconfigure and reload equipment post UK/US exercise for return to the UK
6) Further possible Defence Diplomacy activities and visits - as yet unannounced - possible visit to Canada TBC.
7) Mid December at the latest - Return to Portsmouth.

Note that to ensure that DT-1 and DT-2 can be achieved and the right weather and sea states data points achieved, then the QE is expected to move around the western Atlantic as best possible to find the relevant conditions. This might alter the time taken for both trial periods too.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Of course land bases are available in a few hours even if bombed to hell. "

It takes a lot more effort to render a land base unusable for any length of time than it takes to damage or sink a carrier

[FODPlod]

"Of course land bases are available in a few hours even if bombed to hell. "

It takes a lot more effort to render a land base unusable for any length of time than it takes to damage or sink a carrier
I wondered how long it would take. :hmm:

I intended posting this yesterday but my better nature made me reconsider:In an attempt to forestall the tediously inevitable one-liner by Heathrow Harry or glad rag following any positive news about the QNLZ/F-35 programme:

"It will all end in tears/we're all doomed" (or variations thereof).

[ORAC]

Carry out UK Defence Diplomacy Activities - including visits to USN bases, the port of New York, and other ports as yet to be announced At least the big deck and hangar provide ample space for the ship to perform its primary duty in both fair and foul weather - cocktail parties.

[Heathrow Harry]

Still it's true Plod...................... even if you don't like it.................

[Heathrow Harry]

At least the big deck and hangar provide ample space for the ship to perform its primary duty in both fair and foul weather - cocktail parties.

Ahhh - the days when the Admiralty insisted on teak decks and fittings so the RN could carry out diplomacy - IIRC the "Fearless" class were the last ones that had that "capability" built in?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

"Of course land bases are available in a few hours even if bombed to hell. "

It takes a lot more effort to render a land base unusable for any length of time than it takes to damage or sink a carrier

Is this based on evidence or just your opinion?

Destroying runways is hard - I have heard than one of the lessons of the Falklands Conflict was that specialist weapons were needed to destroy runways (hence the development of JP233 as used by the RAF in 1991), however structures such as hangars with aircraft inside are easily targeted, as are aircraft in the open, radar facilities, and so on. Recent conflicts how the difficulty of protecting the perimeter of bases from determined attack. An airfield cannot move, and cannot do much to stop everyone knowing it is there.

A carrier can use EMCON and other procedures to keep her exact position hidden. Method exists to counter hostile radars/sonars (the QEC design is quieter than previous carriers). The carrier will operate as part of a task group and/or joint force with a full range of capabilities. I could go on, but to what end? If someone said "no need to worry about that as long as the Earth is round" you would reply "what it was discovered it was not?"

[glad rag]

I certainly hope that there is never a need for QE's to go into action/ on operations.

But by their very existence you know some dip**** politician will just be dying to flex his muscles.

But they won't be the ones doing the dying.

you see what has been created?

[BossEyed]

Ahhh - the days when the Admiralty insisted on teak decks and fittings so the RN could carry out diplomacy - IIRC the "Fearless" class were the last ones that had that "capability" built in?
The first Type 23, NORFOLK, initially had a lovely varnished hardwood flight deck. Fabulous for cocktail parties, not so good for flight operations. One of the first FOCFT tasks was to scuff it up, bigly.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

She is on her way:

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1030859060109701120

Fair winds.

A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace - Theodore Roosevelt.

Si vis pacem para bellum!

[orca]

There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging.

The first is that an army - which most countries have - is unlikely to hurt an aircraft carrier, but they could do a lot of damage to an airfield. I think the SAS or LRDG did it quite a lot.

Militia are much the same. I didn’t occur to me at the time but when we were under (half arsed) rocket attack at KAF - the CVNs weren’t. And for whatever reason we weren’t allowed to fly after IDF - I think due to FOD. Good drills.

I know that Black Buck effected Stanley in some way, the SF did over Pebble Island and had their bimble around Tierra Del Fuego - but I don’t think any of the three carriers involved in ‘82 were hit by anything. So I guess Air can attack airfields. That makes sense.

There’s terrorism - to the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single case of attempted kidnap of anyone doing flight deck phys.

Then there’s organic self protection. The aircraft carrier must have some but Akrotiri really doesn’t need it. Never really understood why.

Then there’s the main threat to any capital ship - Sub surface weaponry (when I say main - I mean the type that has accounted for most over the years); with which you don’t deal with organically - you take a SSN with you. The same sort of SSN that carries TLAM that seem to do over air fields regularly. (So you could say that airfield are vulnerable in three domains...I wonder if anyone’s got a space based JP233...that would make it four).

I guess the parallel is that that an airfield would have DCA. A carrier with DCA is a self licking lolly (odd phrase - never understood it); a DOB with DCA is just being sensible. Never understood that either.

I suppose we better talk about carrier killing missiles. Not that one’s ever killed a carrier but they work on the principle that you need specialist weaponry to attack a carrier. Unlike an airfield which can be attacked by a bloke with some wire cutters and a mallet. I suppose you could use your carrier killing weapons against carriers - leaving only your knives, guns, dumb bombs, PGMs, ALCMs etc for the airfields.

I’d very much like to see two RAF QWIs at work - one planning a strike on an airfield, the other scratching his head about attacking a carrier, wondering where the pickets would be, wondering what SURPIC was and who was going to feed it to him, wondering where to hide....the first one would probably get his done first.

Now that QNLZ has sailed any idea where she is. I know it’s somewhere in the Atlantic...I wonder if that counts as a JDAM grade coordinate these days?

All good fun. Best wishes to the boys and girls down range of whatever cloth who quite rightly get the job done and leave pointless arguments to school kids and has beens.

[glad rag]

There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging.

The first is that an army - which most countries have - is unlikely to hurt an aircraft carrier, but they could do a lot of damage to an airfield. I think the SAS or LRDG did it quite a lot.

Militia are much the same. I didn’t occur to me at the time but when we were under (half arsed) rocket attack at KAF - the CVNs weren’t. And for whatever reason we weren’t allowed to fly after IDF - I think due to FOD. Good drills.

I know that Black Buck effected Stanley in some way, the SF did over Pebble Island and had their bimble around Tierra Del Fuego - but I don’t think any of the three carriers involved in ‘82 were hit by anything. So I guess Air can attack airfields. That makes sense.

There’s terrorism - to the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single case of attempted kidnap of anyone doing flight deck phys.

Then there’s organic self protection. The aircraft carrier must have some but Akrotiri really doesn’t need it. Never really understood why.

Then there’s the main threat to any capital ship - Sub surface weaponry (when I say main - I mean the type that has accounted for most over the years); with which you don’t deal with organically - you take a SSN with you. The same sort of SSN that carries TLAM that seem to do over air fields regularly. (So you could say that airfield are vulnerable in three domains...I wonder if anyone’s got a space based JP233...that would make it four).

I guess the parallel is that that an airfield would have DCA. A carrier with DCA is a self licking lolly (odd phrase - never understood it); a DOB with DCA is just being sensible. Never understood that either.

I suppose we better talk about carrier killing missiles. Not that one’s ever killed a carrier but they work on the principle that you need specialist weaponry to attack a carrier. Unlike an airfield which can be attacked by a bloke with some wire cutters and a mallet. I suppose you could use your carrier killing weapons against carriers - leaving only your knives, guns, dumb bombs, PGMs, ALCMs etc for the airfields.

I’d very much like to see two RAF QWIs at work - one planning a strike on an airfield, the other scratching his head about attacking a carrier, wondering where the pickets would be, wondering what SURPIC was and who was going to feed it to him, wondering where to hide....the first one would probably get his done first.

Now that QNLZ has sailed any idea where she is. I know it’s somewhere in the Atlantic...I wonder if that counts as a JDAM grade coordinate these days?

All good fun. Best wishes to the boys and girls down range of whatever cloth who quite rightly get the job done and leave pointless arguments to school kids and has beens.


Are you drunk?

[orca]

Errr, no. I ought to be but have had to delay due to picking up OIC Domestic Bliss from the train.

Shall get to it in just a second.

[FODPlod]

There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging...Good case, well put (unlike the expected standard of retort).

Any rational person would realise you know what you're talking about. BZ!

[ORAC]

Assuming an airfield had an organic airfield repair force (bulldozers, gravel, PSP etc), and the attacking force had a plentiful supply of JP233 pods, the number of sorties required to keep an airfield suppressed was 8-12 sorties - every 24 hours. The anticipated loss rate to SAW was also high as delivery required flying down the length of the runway.

I know the anticipated loss rate for the Buccaneers against a carrier/cruiser with Sea Eagle were also high - but only expected to have to do it once.

[orca]

I’m sure both missions would have been quite the caper.

Of course, there are ways of reducing activity on/ utility of an airfield other than an attack on the main operating surface. Not sure our weaponeering would be up to targeting those pesky tractors!

My personal view is that wrt an attack on a capital ship the SSN/ SSK option would be the one to exhaust before asking Air to have a crack.

High tariff day for those guys as well though.

[FODPlod]

If the anti-carrier lobby would cease banging on about the supposed vulnerability of QNLZ, I'm sure the pro-carrier lobby wouldn't feel the need to mention the aircraft lost to land attacks (let alone air raids or missile attacks) throughout history on Sidi Haneish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Sidi_Haneish_Airfield), Da Nang (http://366thspsk-9.com/Misc/Attacks.htm), Pebble Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Pebble_Island), Camp Bastion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_raid_on_Camp_Bastion), RAF Fairford (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/23/iraq.iraq), etc.

Land and sea-based air are complementary, NOT mutually exclusive. Or are you having too much fun senselessly arguing the toss?

[glad rag]

The one positive about sea launched missions is their comparatively high level of secrecy.

Of course with land launches you can dick around with deceptive planning, feints, tankers etc, BUT once the wheels are in the wells, the wheels are in the wells, for all to "see"...

[glad rag]

If the anti-carrier lobby would cease banging on about the supposed vulnerability of QNLZ, I'm sure the pro-carrier lobby wouldn't feel the need to mention the aircraft lost to land attacks (let alone air raids or missile attacks) throughout history on Sidi Haneish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Sidi_Haneish_Airfield), Da Nang (http://366thspsk-9.com/Misc/Attacks.htm), Pebble Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Pebble_Island), Camp Bastion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_raid_on_Camp_Bastion), RAF Fairford (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/23/iraq.iraq), etc.

Land and sea-based air are complementary, NOT mutually exclusive. Or are you having too much fun senselessly arguing the toss?

You missed out RAF Leuchars and Warton off your list....

[glad rag]

Errr, no. I ought to be but have had to delay due to picking up OIC Domestic Bliss from the train.

Shall get to it in just a second.


:D :D :D :D

[glad rag]

I wondered how long it would take. :hmm:

I intended posting this yesterday but my better nature made me reconsider:

The Kh-22 uses an Tumanski liquid-fuel rocket engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine), fueled with TG-02 (Tonka-250 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonka-250)) and IRFNA (inhibited red fuming nitric acid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fuming_nitric_acid)), giving it a maximum speed of Mach 4.6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) and a range of up to 600 km (320 nmi). It can be launched in either high-altitude or low-altitude mode. In high-altitude mode, it climbs to an altitude of 27,000 m (89,000 ft) and makes a high-speed dive into the target, with a terminal speed of about Mach 4.6. In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft). The missile is guided by a gyroscope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope)-stabilized autopilot in conjunction with a radio altimeter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_altimeter).

Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge) warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter (19.63 m2 (211.3 sq ft)), and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22#cite_note-3)

"By August 2016, Russia was finalizing the trials of the Kh-32 cruise missile, a derivative of the Kh-22. Designed for use by the Tu-22M3 bomber, the missile is designed to climb to 40 km (130,000 ft) to the stratosphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere) after launch, transition to level flight, then perform a steep dive to the target; its combination of speed and flight path makes it virtually invulnerable to interception by ground-based air defenses and fighters.[[i]citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] The advanced cruise missile is designed to target enemy ships, radars, and "radio-contrast targets" like bridges, military bases, electric power plants, and others. The Kh-32 has an inertial navigation system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system) and radar homing head, making it independent of GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS)/GLONASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS) navigation satellites. Presumably, it has a range of 1,000 km (620 mi; 540 nmi) and a speed of at least 5,000 km/h (3,100 mph; Mach 4.1).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22#cite_note-navyreco24aug16-10) Apparently the missile entered service in the same year.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22#cite_note-11) 32 Kh-22 missiles will be modernized to the Kh-32 level in 2018-2020.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22#cite_note-12)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22

[orca]

So there’s no point building ships, bridges, military bases or power stations...no dramas, the Harrier chaps are all over this sort of thing!😉

[LowObservable]

Land bases are susceptible to damage or harassment, but short of a BoS are almost impossible to destroy, or disable for weeks or months. The reverse applies to carriers at sea.

JP233, by the way, dates from well before the Falklands. It was mentioned in Flight in 1977. It was expected to shut down airfields for a considerable time and the Sovs were expected to come up with something similar, hence the desire to retain some STOVL and STOL capability in the force. This resulted in the GR5 and some features of the Typhoon. You'll recall that, around the same time, the USAF set a 1,500-foot STOL target for the ATF.

Land-based aircraft can be protected by GBAD, CCD and dispersal, all of which present Red with a cost-imposition problem that gets less favorable with standoff range, and by built-in resilience.

Carriers, by contrast, present a location problem - but one that gets easier the more imaging satellites there are in the sky.

[ORAC]

You'll recall that, around the same time, the USAF set a 1,500-foot STOL target for the ATF. They also demonstrated a ground mapping radar mod which was engaged on finals to a cratered runway and could identify a 50ft wide 1500ft MOS and safely land and brake the aircraft to a stop.

IIRC they also tested a FBW mod which could adjust for an engine out, loss of half a tail, 50% loss of controls etc and still allow the pilot full and free stick movement with the aircraft compensating.

Was that sort of stuff incorporated into the Typhoon/ F-35 FCS?

[KenV]

Land-based aircraft can be protected by GBAD, CCD and dispersal, all of which present Red with a cost-imposition problem that gets less favorable with standoff range, and by built-in resilience.

Carriers, by contrast, present a location problem - but one that gets easier the more imaging satellites there are in the sky.I get what you mean. All those imaging satellites are quick and cheap to build, and their launch and mission support are also very cheap and thus they impose no "cost-imposition problem." And in a major shooting war where carriers are being targeted such satellites and their ground control stations are completely invulnerable. Yeah shur.

[Frostchamber]

With the pluses and minuses on both sides, it's a good thing we'll have both ;)

[orca]

Concur Sir! Very well put.

[glad rag]

I get what you mean. All those imaging satellites are quick and cheap to build, and their launch and mission support are also very cheap and thus they impose no "cost-imposition problem." And in a major shooting war where carriers are being targeted such satellites and their ground control stations are completely invulnerable. Yeah shur.

Have you ever watched a space x launch onboard coverage?

Have you ever heard of cubesats??

What if the sats [cube or otherwise] are already in position???

So many questions but only one answer will becoming......

[LowObservable]

GR... pretty much. Schwacking everything out of LEO that can image ~1 m resolution is apt to be difficult and messy. But Yeah shur you can babble about Yeah shur if you want to make the problem go away, or better yet you can yell Rumplesnitz!

[Lyneham Lad]

Surprised that this lengthy BBC News article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers) has not already been linked.

[orca]

Surely we’re not contemplating a kinetic attack on space based systems? Far better ways of using the gaming generation than that.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

More importantly:

1. Satellites are great for seeing things that do not move, but not so good as tracking moving things such as ships. Not only is the field of view limited, but the ship moves, and whilst the satellite comes back to the same point in its orbit, the Earth has moved.

2. Exactly what some of resolution do you expect from a Cubesat? Have any had a Earth Observation mission? No? What does that tell you?

3. Cubesats are only so cheap as they hitch a lift with a proper payload such as a satellite being launched in Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit.

[glad rag]

More importantly:

1. Satellites are great for seeing things that do not move, but not so good as tracking moving things such as ships. Not only is the field of view limited, but the ship moves, and whilst the satellite comes back to the same point in its orbit, the Earth has moved.

2. Exactly what some of resolution do you expect from a Cubesat? Have any had a Earth Observation mission? No? What does that tell you?

3. Cubesats are only so cheap as they hitch a lift with a proper payload such as a satellite being launched in Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit.

Your points are noted.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/for-cubesat-specialist-isis-sigint-is-a-mission-cubesats-are-made-for/

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4107%26context%3Dsmallsat&ved=2ahUKEwiUyK-huIjdAhXEDcAKHSifDUMQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1-qL0grNUcXQiylQ9-cbzO

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4107%26context%3Dsmallsat&ved=2ahUKEwiUyK-huIjdAhXEDcAKHSifDUMQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1-qL0grNUcXQiylQ9-cbzO

5 seconds on Google.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Your points are noted.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/for-cubesat-specialist-isis-sigint-is-a-mission-cubesats-are-made-for/

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4107%26context%3Dsmallsat&ved=2ahUKEwiUyK-huIjdAhXEDcAKHSifDUMQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1-qL0grNUcXQiylQ9-cbzO

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4107%26context%3Dsmallsat&ved=2ahUKEwiUyK-huIjdAhXEDcAKHSifDUMQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1-qL0grNUcXQiylQ9-cbzO

5 seconds on Google.

Interesting links -although they seem to be by the same company. I was assuming you were referring to imagery satellites. However many of the same limitations apply. The Western Navies have lived with hostile SIGINT for decades, including during World War Two. Counter measures do exist

[ORAC]

Depends on how many you want to launch at a time - and the payload.

SpaceX intends to put 12,000 Starlink 400kg cubesats in two height layered constellations within the next 5 years, the payload capacity of a BFR when it enters service will be around 300-307 of them. Since the USAF is already talking seriously of becoming a major SpaceX BFR customer, how many do you think they, or the new Space Command, would have to launch in polar orbit to provide 24/7 one hour coverage?

Meanwhile, changing subject, the previous HMS Ocean has reached her new home.

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/08/brazils-new-helicopter-carrier.html

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1080x1080/39122479_297425837703399_9057704626574184123_n_bf779ad4bb1f5 ce1050e33f14edb16abc4b01820.jpg

[KenV]

Have you ever watched a space x launch onboard coverage?Yes

Have you ever heard of cubesats??Yes. Military grade high resolution imaging cubesats? Not so much.

What if the sats [cube or otherwise] are already in position???What if they are? Cubesats can be neutralized even easier than higher orbit hardened military satellites. And that's just the satellites. You can effectively kill the entire satellite constellation by killing the few satellite control ground stations. Or are they magically invulnerable?

So many questions but only one answer will becoming......There are plenty of answers. None indicate that carriers are inherently more or less vulnerable than land airbases and none indicate that satellite constellations, even ones numbering in the thousands of individual satellites, are invulnerable.

[glad rag]

Yes

Yes. Military grade high resolution imaging cubesats? Not so much.

What if they are? Cubesats can be neutralized even easier than higher orbit hardened military satellites.

There are plenty of answers. None indicate that carriers are inherently more or less vulnerable than land airbases.
Not quite sure what your angle is Ken, I'm merely pointing out that technology advances and costs plummet.

An example is the planned 12,000 plus constellation of internet cube sats proposed by spacex to cover the continental US.
EG.BFR is said to have a capacity of 250 per launch, fh around 50@ 850 kg each.
So a determined foe with launch capability even less than say F9 could, with multiple launches, seed the area of operations of a carrier group and continue to do so.
As for speculation who says every 850kg cube sat actually needs to be for surveillance ....

[KenV]

Not quite sure what your angle is Ken, I thought my "angle" was quite clear and succinct. Since you apparently missed it I will repeat:
There are plenty of answers. None indicate that carriers are inherently more or less vulnerable than land airbases.

I'm merely pointing out that technology advances and costs plummet.
An example is the planned 12,000 plus constellation of internet cube sats proposed by spacex to cover the continental US.
EG.BFR is said to have a capacity of 250 per launch, fh around 50@ 850 kg each.Does this technology apply to military grade imaging satellites?

So a determined foe with launch capability even less than say F9 could, with multiple launches, seed the area of operations of a carrier group and continue to do so.
As for speculation who says every 850kg cube sat actually needs to be for surveillance ....Seed the area of operations of a carrier group?! Do you imagine these satellites can hover over an "area of operations?" Regardless of the number of satellites that are so seeded, it takes ground stations to make those satellites of any value. Are those ground stations invulnerable? Can the links to/from the satellites be jammed? Can the satellites by blinded/soft killed with a directed EMP burst?

[pr00ne]

So, everything can be destroyed by something...

[Mr Mac]

Judging by what a none nuclear Swedish Sub did to the Ronald Reagan and Battle Group during an exercise some years ago, and lived to tell the tail you do not need to have massively expensive systems. The cost of the said sub was equivalent to one of our much vaunted new fighters. As the Russian defence minister said about the new carrier when commissioned "it is just a big target". I know the idea is about power projection, but given our straightened circumstances and our potentially even poorer economy, are we still in the power projection league, or do we want to be ?
Regards
Mr Mac

[glad rag]

I thought my "angle" was quite clear and succinct. Since you apparently missed it I will repeat:
There are plenty of answers. None indicate that carriers are inherently more or less vulnerable than land airbases.

Does this technology apply to military grade imaging satellites?

Seed the area of operations of a carrier group?! Do you imagine these satellites can hover over an "area of operations?" Regardless of the number of satellites that are so seeded, it takes ground stations to make those satellites of any value. Are those ground stations invulnerable? Can the links to/from the satellites be jammed? Can the satellites by blinded/soft killed with a directed EMP burst?

yeah that's a great idea ken.

however bearing in mind the Russian tactical docrine in the first use of nukes, you may have inadvertently "hit the nail on the head"

[KenV]

yeah that's a great idea ken.
however bearing in mind the Russian tactical docrine in the first use of nukes, you may have inadvertently "hit the nail on the head"Everyone pretty much concedes that once nukes are in play, all bets are off.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1037390917731315712

HMS Queen Elizabeth has arrived in the USA. Mayport, Florida to be exact. Exciting weeks ahead.

[Navaleye]

Good news folks . I hear Mr Trump is coming to visit.

[SARF]

Quite nice to send something stateside that is bigger than one of their tug boats

[Obi Wan Russell]

Considerably bigger than a Tug...https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1320x629/40969538_1966326763405503_53999459876470784_n_fd4bd30c083eb7 75da03b6afacbef60ff9e72bec.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1344x721/41239102_299561944162835_5977820196507746304_n_92aecf5671f84 0c46b90031711d7c0ac3cdacd96.jpg

[Cazalet33]

Royal Navy sailors from the UK's £3.1bn flagship aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth have been arrested in Florida, a Navy spokesman has said.The sailors, on shore leave, began fighting and urinating in public, according to local newspaper reports.Six crew members were arrested on drunk and disorderly charges on Wednesday, Sgt Larry Smith of Jacksonville Beach police department is quoted as saying


Ho hum. Ho hum.

[pr00ne]

Well, THAT’S never happened before has it!

Watch Sailor to see how it used to be on Ark Royal.

[glad rag]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flaws-in-mods-9... (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flaws-in-mods-9bn-f-35-lightning-ii-jets-not-being-fixed-bm6hglvvp)

"Flaws in MoD’s £9bn F-35 Lightning II jets ‘not being fixed’"

"Critical safety flaws in Britain’s new stealth warplanes are being reclassified rather than fixed, according to an investigation by a US spending watchdog.

Britain is buying 48 F-35 Lightning II fighter bombers from America for £9.1bn, with a pledge to purchase a total of 138. The fast-jet programme has, however, been marred by technical problems as the aircraft undergo testing ready to enter frontline service.

The warplane had 111 “category 1” deficiencies, which “could jeopardise safety, security or another critical requirement”, according to the Government Accountability Office, an agency that works for the US Congress.

An investigation by the spending watchdog Project on Government Oversight (Pogo) has now claimed that some of these deficiencies are being recategorised by defence officials as less severe, despite the…



https://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/whistle.gif


Enjoy the runs ashore while they last, Jack..

[Onceapilot]

Everyone pretty much concedes that once nukes are in play, all bets are off.

I do not. :oh:

OAP

[KenV]

I do not. :oh: OAPOK, so there's someone who is willing not only to conjecture on the outcome of a limited nuclear exchange, but willing to bet on it. Interesting to know, but how does that influence the discussion of the survivability of carriers vs land air bases.

[Onceapilot]

OK, so there's someone who is willing not only to conjecture on the outcome of a limited nuclear exchange, but willing to bet on it. Interesting to know, but how does that influence the discussion of the survivability of carriers vs land air bases.

Proportionality. The Strike of purely Military assets at sea with no collateral would not be proportional to a similar Strike on a land target in a populated area.

OAP

[orca]

Glad Rag - of the 111 deficiencies that could compromise safety/ requirement/ security/ capability - how many actually do? How does 111 stack up against other similar/ comparable programmes? Anyone know?

[LowObservable]

Orca - I don't know, off the top of my head.

I do know how many other comparable programs have faced similar questions, 22 years after the start of major investments, that have never been deprived of a cent of requested funding.

[orca]

So no programmes from countries that pay in cents? Well done you for knowing all the programmes. That must be a lot.

Are there any made in some of the other countries? I heard a few countries made stuff. Could be wrong.

I imagined that there would be a couple of programmes out there (some even paid for in cents) which can only dream about 111 issues. When I say imagined...

[glad rag]

European F-35 fighter jet users push to drive down operating costs


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-military-fighter-europe/european-f-35-fighter-jet-users-push-to-drive-down-operating-costs-idUKKCN1LQ25X


Operating costs were a big issue when senior military officials from the United States, Israel and F-35 user nations in Europe - Britain, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, the Netherlands - met in Germany last week, they said.

“We discussed the importance of ensuring that future costs - specifically for sustainment - are kept to a minimum so that we don’t have to cut into future purchases,” U.S. Air Force Colonel Leslie Hauck, who heads the fifth generation integration office at the U.S. Air Force headquarters in Europe, told Reuters.

The latest Pentagon selected acquisition report on the programme put the cost per flying hour of the F-35 at around $30,000 per flying hour in 2012 dollars, compared to around $25,500 per hour for an older-generation F-16 fighter. Fuel cost changes could boost that sum in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The Pentagon’s F-35 programme office last week said it would compile and distribute information from users about maintenance procedures, staffing requirements and other key metrics.

Together the allies will have some 64 F-35s in Europe by 2019 and 550 by 2034, General Tod Wolters, the head of U.S. and NATO air forces in Europe, told officials at last week’s meeting.

The first U.S. F-35s are set to arrive in 2021.[ No doubt THEY will not require extensive re build to meet operational standards.]



Hmm. No mention of the use of synthetic trainers to reduce actual airframe usage.

Oh there aren't any...
​​​​​​​ (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-military-fighter-europe/european-f-35-fighter-jet-users-push-to-drive-down-operating-costs-idUKKCN1LQ25X)

[glad rag]

So no programmes from countries that pay in cents? Well done you for knowing all the programmes. That must be a lot.

Are there any made in some of the other countries? I heard a few countries made stuff. Could be wrong.

I imagined that there would be a couple of programmes out there (some even paid for in cents) which can only dream about 111 issues. When I say imagined...

Fill your boots.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/dod/2017f35jsf.pdf

[tucumseh]

Only 111 Cat 1s? Bloody well done I say. I recall 53 on one comms LRU alone in Merlin/Lynx/Sea King in about 1984. (Yes, Merlin comms system design was complete then). Funding turned down and they just sit on record should anything happen. It was fixed in 1994 on ASaC Mk7, mainly due to role, but not retrospectively to those older designs.

Edit: Should just add those 53 were not caused by the manufacturer, but by the Home Office changing the spec.

[KenV]

Proportionality. The Strike of purely Military assets at sea with no collateral would not be proportional to a similar Strike on a land target in a populated area. OAPHmmm. An enemy that nukes a carrier battle group "with no collateral" has no military assets anywhere that could be nuked "with no collateral"? And once a nuclear exchange begins that is pure military "with no collateral" (yah shur), it will in no wise escalate? Yah shur.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hmmm. An enemy that nukes a carrier battle group "with no collateral" has no military assets anywhere that could be nuked "with no collateral"? And once a nuclear exchange begins that is pure military "with no collateral" (yah shur), it will in no wise escalate? Yah shur.
Ken, it might escalate but the whole point of selecting a purely military target is to reduce the certainty of escalation.

[friartuck]

I think kenv is right... you let the N cat out of the bag and all bets are off

nuke maybe 8000 people and god knows how many zillion dollars worth of kit..... no political system anywhere could stand by and not retaliate....

[Pontius Navigator]

I think kenv is right... you let the N cat out of the bag and all bets are off

nuke maybe 8000 people and god knows how many zillion dollars worth of kit..... no political system anywhere could stand by and not retaliate....
Retailiate, yes, but what target?

Destruction of a nuclear asset by non nuclear means is still retaliation. You could boil a bit of sea but an SSN has a greater chance of a confirmed kill and of course why stop at one?

Nuking a CVS with any certainty is not as easy as it sounds. Penetrating the defensive screen is not easy. Launching a 'barrage' of SSM/ASM might give a greater assurance of at least one hit, but would they want to salvo off all their missiles in one blow? Of course there is the question of use it or lose it.

*
In one paper exercise, pre-Able Archer, a subordinate commander sought first use ofva nuclear weapon to stop the Red advance. SACEUR got authorisation for nuclear release. We were surprised that the target list was 50 targets; it certainly showed the thinking at star level.

[KenV]

Ken, it might escalate but the whole point of selecting a purely military target is to reduce the certainty of escalation."It might escalate?" Or not. You really want to bet on "It might not escalate?"

"Reduce the certainty of escalation?" Which is more certain, that it will or that it will not escalate? And given the uncertainly, you are willing to bet the vast majority of the planet's entire civilized population that it will not? Sounds like a terrible bet to me, whether the target is a CBG or a land air base.

And on the subject of "proportionality", what's proportional about using a Super Hornet launched from a super carrier and now cruising at 15,000 ft releasing a 1000lb guided bomb to take out a Taliban on a bicycle with an RPG? Or using Stealth bombers who've just flown the long way round from the US to Afghanistan to bomb a bunch of stinking dudes hiding in a cave? In the real world of actual military operations, "proportionality" is usually the last thing on any one's mind. If the folks in the field are given weapons free to use nukes, the target list is CERTAIN to include lots of stuff that is not going to be remotely "proportional" in the sense used here.

Consider that Japan bombed "purely military targets" (most of them naval) in Hawaii in 1941. What was the response? B-25s launched from a carrier which bombed the biggest (and very densely civilian populated) city in Japan. And ultimately two nukes on two cities. Why imagine the response will be so much different today?

In short, "proportionality" in military operations is almost certainly a pipe dream. The US has a long history of meeting a direct military threat with overwhelming force. Why imagine that will change? And the US does not even have to use nukes to provide a very devastating response. Is bombing Shanghai or another strategic target into oblivion using non nukes "proportional" to using nukes to take out a CBG? I don't know. Do you?

[Bing]

I'm pretty sure the last time someone attacked another country's fleet it escalated to nuclear retaliation. Of course they had to invent the bomb first but still.

[Onceapilot]

Is bombing Shanghai or another strategic target into oblivion using non nukes "proportional" to using nukes to take out a CBG? I don't know. Do you?

Yes, I do.
The answer is no, in the case of Shanghai, a city of 24 Million people. "Another strategic target" depends on what the target is, how it is attacked and the collateral.

OAP

[orca]

Bing - the twin seaters will be along in a second to say something about attacking the Libyan Fleet in 2011.

[KenV]

Yes, I do.
The answer is no.You sound very sure of yourself. I wonder if Trump, Mattis, and Adm Mullen agree with you. I have my doubts. The US military had little compunctions about bombing Hanoi and no CBG was remotely threatened, never mind nuked. And the US military was desirous and even anxious to nuke China during the Korean War when no CBG was threatened, never mind nuked.

And even if Shanghai were not conventionally bombed, would the US hesitate to mine every significant Chinese port and for good measure also bomb a significant number of "pure military targets?"

[Timelord]

To change direction a bit: Where are the F35/Queen Elizabeth trials being mounted from, and will wherever it is survive the hurricane?

[Obi Wan Russell]

To change direction a bit: Where are the F35/Queen Elizabeth trials being mounted from, and will wherever it is survive the hurricane?

Well it was supposed to be Pax River for the aircraft and Norfolk VA for the ship. Might be a bit of sweeping up to do after Florence... messy girl!

[Mk 1]

And the US military was desirous and even anxious to nuke China during the Korean War when no CBG was threatened, never mind nuked.
"
Ken, I think that was more due to the input of General Douglas -I'm-so-important-I-dont't-need-to-listen-to-my-president McArthur.

[glad rag]

To change direction a bit: Where are the F35/Queen Elizabeth trials being mounted from, and will wherever it is survive the hurricane?



#You know that moment when someone says "watch this"....

Hope they enjoy the ride!

[friartuck]

One of the stated uses of the QE's is "disaster relief" - all part of the service .................

[KenV]

Ken, I think that was more due to the input of General Douglas -I'm-so-important-I-dont't-need-to-listen-to-my-president McArthur.Indeed, and what stopped him from using nukes was his civilian commander in chief. If Truman had OK'd a nuclear release does anyone imagine the target(s) would have been "purely military with no collateral." Nope. Same with nuking a "purely military target" like a Carrier Battle Group. Nuking a CBG would be taken as a declaration of war, just as taking out battleships at Pearl Harbor was taken as a declaration of war. Once war is declared and nukes released, the target list is certain to include much more than "pure military targets". The notion that the US would restrict itself to "proportionality" in a full on war is absurd. Essentially all of US military doctrine calls for an overwhelming response. Remember "shock and awe"? Zero "proportionality" there, and yet zero carriers threatened, much less nuked.

There's an old saying dating back to WW2. If you shoot at a squad of troops, how do you know who they are?
If you get accurate return fire with rifles, they are Brits
If you get return fire with machine guns, they are Germans
If nothing happens for 10 minutes, but then your position is obliterated with an artillery barrage, they're Americans.

For good or ill, the American military mind set is to use overwhelming firepower. That's doubly true after the Vietnam experience. Remember that the US entered WW2 because a bunch of battleships were sunk on a fairly remote island outpost not even part of the US homeland. Take a look at any photos of Dresden and Tokyo after WW2 and then try to sell the notion of "proportionality". That dog won't hunt. Proportionality in a full on war is a pipe dream.

[Onceapilot]

As this is the Military forum of PPRUNE, readers might be expecting informed and professional level opinion on Military matters. Those who wish to explore the background information about LOAC in open source might search out the subject in the Government documentation that is published. This documentation lists the various conventions and protocols that nations have, or have not, signed and ratified under law.

OAP

[glad rag]

As this is the Military forum of PPRUNE, readers might be expecting informed and professional level opinion on Military matters. Those who wish to explore the background information about LOAC in open source might search out the subject in the Government documentation that is published. This documentation lists the various conventions and protocols that nations have, or have not, signed and ratified under law.

OAP

Try telling it to the guy on the err....left.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x837/upload_tass_28575868_pic4_zoom_1500x1500_28086_9312a449d54e2 2fca02025189dca11280b983ac1.jpg

[Onceapilot]

HE (or his agencies) know alot about it. You can be sure.

OAP

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Since her arrival in Mayport, Queen Elizabeth appears to have gone silent regarding the media and Twitter. Some fools might think she has been idling in port, waiting for the weather to prove. No! She has been doing warm water trials.

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1041655896210845696

Those trials will have involved flying.

In the last few days, she has arrived at Norfolk (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/september/17/180917-qnlz-arrives-in-norfolk):

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1043189805054681088

I saw that on the documentary in 2011 - the fact that SDSR 10 was not a terminal blow for RN carrier aviation speaks volumes about how rugged and innovative the Navy, and the people in it, can be.

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1043189954950692870

SQEP!

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1043190692510658563

Last Harrier landing in 2011? Eh?

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1043258256758583296

Fleet Commander embarked - what about the First Sea Lord?

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1043486359007186944

Flag Foxtrot coming soon.

[Jabba_TG12]

".... the fact that SDSR 10 was not a terminal blow for RN carrier aviation speaks volumes about how rugged and innovative the Navy, and the people in it, can be."

"....The bastard ought to work for Intourist, Ramius told himself, except that Gorkiy is a city closed to foreigners. He had been there twice. It had struck him as a typical Soviet city, full of ramshackle buildings, dirty streets, and ill-clad citizens. As it was in most Russian cities, winter was Gorkiy's best season. The snow hid all the dirt...."

[idle bystander]

:D:D:D:D:D

[Obi Wan Russell]

It is believed the first F-35B landings aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth have taken place earlier this week. Official statements and photos/videos will be released tomorrow, Friday 28th September. In the meantime we have to make do with this artist's impression of the event:
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x680/42608019_10215834087472487_6396281883814002688_n_165d114e19a 9da94ac8ab16ca54aae0dcc00f626.jpg

[Davef68]

Pictures of an F-35 taking off from QE appear on t'net. (UK Defence Journal) Apparently landed/took of on Tuesday

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1021x580/f35ondeck1_cab59392285d87cfa688e33c50c61c3ae02e073d.jpg

[ACW342]

Why's he/she got the airbrake up?

[BossEyed]

Because it's not an airbrake; it's the lift fan cover.

Congratulations, everybody involved. :D

[glad rag]

Because it's not an airbrake; it's the lift fan cover.

Congratulations, everybody involved. :D

Indeed, it is certainly a feat for logistics, ops and crew to pull it all "together"...

[Obi Wan Russell]

2ITF F35B LIGHTNINGS ON HMS QE'S DECK
A picture Tweeted a short while ago showing the 2 ITF F35Bs now landed on HMS QE's deck on 25 Sep 18.
BF05 flown by Commander Nathan Gray RN FAA was the first to land on this historic occaision, with Squadron Leader Andy Edgal landing second in BF04.https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x715/42668561_10155601112796481_3079290409323593728_n_213bd21022d d958dd5c3e9c1c0555315c690f6c3.jpg

[ACW342]

Ahh, you mean like the lift engines on the Short SC1 in the Ulster Folk and Transport museum just up the road. The engines that were shut down in forward flight and added nothing other than lots of weight and were only used again at the end of the flight to land, like them lift engines?

A342

[Whinging Tinny]

From another source:

FIRST F35B TAKE OFF FROM HMS QE - 25 SEP 18
RN FAA TEST PILOT IN HISTORIC 1ST F35B LANDING & TAKE OFF ON HMS QE
Commander Nathan Gray RN FAA is seen taking off the first F35B Lightning from HMS Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday 25 Sept 18 in a historic moment in the history of RN aircraft carriers.
This is the first supersonic STOVL aircraft operating on any RN carrier, the first supersonic aircraft landing and take-off for 40 years on an RN carrier and the first fast jet aircraft on an RN carrier since 2011. It’s also the first time an F35B Lightning has operated on a non USN ship.
25 Sep 18 therefore marks the date that the RN and the UK re-joins the 1st league of maritime air power projection and with the latest cutting edge capabilities. Last time that happened was 1969 when the first FAA F4 Phantom landed on HMS Eagle. A historic and most welcome return indeed”

[Engines]

Ahh, you mean like the lift engines on the Short SC1 in the Ulster Folk and Transport museum just up the road. The engines that were shut down in forward flight and added nothing other than lots of weight and were only used again at the end of the flight to land, like them lift engines?

A342

ACW, perhaps I can offer the following thoughts.

Yes, the F-35B has a lift fan (a bit like a lift engine, yes), and yes, when it's shut down in forward flight it does add weight and yes, it's only used again at the end of the flight. Of course, the end of an F-35B flight is a bit different, because it requires zero airspeed to do a vertical landing and land on a ship, which is one of the key requirements that the UK signed up to. To do that, you need a powered lift system. It's what will allow the F-35B to operate from a range of warships including LHDs and other small carriers.

A powered lift system also allows landings (and take offs) using short strips, as the USMC required it to do. I suppose that might be useful one day. Actually, thinking about it, the F-35B's not exactly like the SC1, because the main engine also provides powered lift. That reduces the amount of 'dead' weight by quite a bit. And helps make the F-35B a very serious combat aircraft. Hope this helps explain things

Best Regards as ever to all those working so damned hard to give the UK a serious maritime aviation capability.

Engines

[Obi Wan Russell]

Some shots from the start of trials:https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1200/ihsckhg_c3e5265d4715274ca4672f2c1bbed97006ab7dfa.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/doncqvev4aaliyw_74a1aa85dcc52b47f07531aa850c5a429aa21f44.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/donc89sxuaacyhh_f142556e279047bff07666feb8a216807dc26940.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Late last night this news got put on the Royal Navy website:

F-35B Lightning jets land on HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/september/28/180928-first-deck-landing)

Fast fighter jets are once again flying from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier as the first F-35s have landed on the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Royal Navy Commander Nathan Gray and RAF Squadron Leader Andy Edgell were the first pilots to make history by landing their F-35 Lightning stealth jets on the flight deck of Britain's newest carrier.

Shortly afterwards, Commander Gray became the first pilot to take off using the ship's ski ramp. The flying operations mark the start of more than 500 take-offs and landings set to take place from the warship over the next 11 weeks.

Speaking shortly after the first landing on Tuesday 25 September 2018, Commander Gray said:

"No words can explain how it felt to turn the corner at 500mph and see HMS Queen Elizabeth awaiting the arrival of her first F-35 jets. I feel incredibly privileged.

"For a naval aviator it is always a special moment when you spot the carrier in the distance, hidden within a grey expanse of ocean. HMS Queen Elizabeth is a floating city, home to hundreds of fellow sailors and Royal Marines, and it's been a particularly poignant day."

[idle bystander]

From another source:
Last time that happened was 1969 when the first FAA F4 Phantom landed on HMS Eagle.
Not strictly the case. EAGLE was never operational with F4s. She was modified to conduct flying trials only and the deck would not have lasted many more reheat launches. The RN became operational with supersonic jets in May 1971, when ARK ROYAL completed ORI. Happy days.

[glad rag]

Ahh, you mean like the lift engines on the Short SC1 in the Ulster Folk and Transport museum just up the road. The engines that were shut down in forward flight and added nothing other than lots of weight and were only used again at the end of the flight to land, like them lift engines?

A342


You missed out the smaller weapon bays as well. :}