US Squadrons may use UK carrier for operations

[golamv]

This is from the BBC:


BBC News - US squadrons 'may use UK carrier' for operations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30209960)


"The Royal Navy may ask US squadrons to fly off its new aircraft carrier following delays to its new F35B fighters, BBC Newsnight has learned."


How embarrassing is that?

[Boudreaux Bob]

No problem....the US Navy has been well trained to work out of spartan quarters in the past....they will get over it. I would bet the trade of Ice Cream Machines for Beer will be acceptable.

[Royalistflyer]

Why don't we just buy the Marine's AV8s and fly them ourselves until the F-35 eventually (if ever) arrives.

[Arfur Dent]

Or we could buy back the Harriers we sold them not long ago. You couldn't make this up could you Dr Fox???

[Boudreaux Bob]

Why not buy some surplus F-18's....we got loads of them with our downsizing!

[dat581]

What are you going to fly the F-18s off Bob? Going to borrow an American carrier too?

[Dash8driver1312]

Certain South American nations maintain their carrier qualifications with Gringo-Gaucho exercises any time a US Carrier Group rounds the Cape when transiting from one ocean to the other.

It's called sharing resources and maintaining international relations.

[airborne_artist]

"He (Lord Richards)denied that it was humiliating for Britain not to have its own jets ready when it comes into service because the ships could be used for different functions such as carrying helicopters or troops."

But will we have enough helos and soldiers to fill a QE class? :\

[TBM-Legend]

So what happened to "Rule Britannia"??:uhoh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=voeo0Oiox-c

[Jollygreengiant64]

Sometimes I wonder why we bothered buying these 2 big carriers. Why not just watch the Americans use theirs? Much cheaper...

[NickB]

I wonder if we will ever get the F35B - we've have ordered a grand total of 4 and are now offering the use of the carriers to the US... with another round of defence cuts coming after the GE next year one wonders if the F35B will be cancelled and the two carriers sold off to... the US (to be modded for F35C ops)or some other nation.

Why didn't we keep the Harriers? :ugh:

[Royalistflyer]

The Harriers worked and were still viable for their strike role for a few more years, apart from giving us fully trained pilots used to the peculiarities of operation for when (if) the F35B ever eventuates. We would have had a moderately potent couple of carriers.

[ProSentia]

"Sometimes I wonder why we bothered buying these 2 big carriers..."

Because they are being built in Gordon Brown's constituency, and they were ordered when he was...

[LowObservable]

This would seem to be a stopgap given the earlier arrival of at least some Marine F-35Bs. It also meshes with the new Marine Conops.

[Jollygreengiant64]

At least they will have a full complement of aircraft, I suppose :ugh:.

I genuinely wonder whether the clever (Taking politics out of the equation) thing to do in times like these is to just build fresh Harriers/ older generation, proven aircraft and fit them with modern Radar/ Meteor, Sidewinder X, glass cockpit etc... Stealth will be outdone by heavier ground based Radar; then what with the plastic fantastic F35 have? In the future fights we are likely to engage in, would it be worse to use 2 Carriers full of Super Buccaneer/ Super Harrier and the flexibility that brings, compared to using a handful of F35?

[dctyke]

Whilst we are waited for aircraft those two carriers could 'carry' an awful lot of ISO containers to and from China! We could also get hundreds of Japanese and Korean cars inside and on the decks. We could call it PPI....... Might even buy one or two more f35s.

[lasernigel]

Another problem is look at a US carrier group.

CSG or CVBG normally consist of 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Guided Missile Cruisers (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates

Have we got enough spare navy ships to do that now, plus fulfill other commitments???

[charliegolf]

"He (Lord Richards)denied that it was humiliating for Britain not to have its own jets ready when it comes into service

I think it's rather sweet of him to be confident they WILL arrive in service before the jets. Bless!

CG

[Party Animal]

And of course, there is no embarrassment or humiliation in asking our allies to provide MPA in the defence of Britains interests.

lasernigel - you forgot the supporting SSN and dedicated P-8 MPA.

[NutLoose]

It stunned me when I saw the size of the fleet sent out to welcome the German grand fleet upon its surrender at the end of WW1..
But we must be the laughing stock of the world over the carrier farce...

See

BBC News - The day the entire German fleet surrendered (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30128199)

[Herod]

At least the things will be used, better than sitting gathering rust in a dockyard. It will give the US another reach as well.

[PhilipG]

It could of course be a cunning plan to get the USMC to put pressure on the USN to buy some Queen Elizabeth Class carriers?

[SpazSinbad]

USMC Harriers on HMS Illustrious Published on Jan 20, 2014
"In the summer of 2007, the US Marine Corps and British Royal Navy made history by accomplishing something that had never been done before: a wing of USMC Harrier jump jets operated for several days aboard the British aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious. Military reporter Michael Jordan of Cosmos Mariner Productions accompanied the Marines on their history-making embark and filed this report as part of a longer film on US-British military cooperation. www.cosmosavannah.com (http://www.cosmosavannah.com) "
USMC Harriers on HMS Illustrious - YouTube

[Stendec5]

It's all such a total mess. But should anyone be really surprised?
This lunacy is coming from the same political class that predicted manned (or should that be "personed?" combat aircraft would be replaced by missiles by the 1970s.
The same ******** that cancelled what should have been our new generation carriers in 1965 because carriers were "too vulnerable."
Superb ships such as Hermes, Victorious, Eagle and Ark Royal, that should have been replaced by CVA-01/2/3...but weren't. Have a look on YouTube for "British Carrier Operations in the 1960s" for some great footage of HMS Eagle. Bitter sweet viewing.
Yes, those pictures of the Fleet in 1918/19. Mind boggling/wonderful.

[Lima Juliet]

It's not just the political snouts in the troughs. Look at our businesses bidding for Government contracts. If you take the carriers ALLEGEDLY:

1. We order 2 huge carriers well over budget from a UK company.

2. We decide that we should buy VSTOL to support British engine makers and the same UK company that has a larger share in the VSTOL version than the conventional version.

3. The Government decide that the VSTOL version is going to be too expensive, with less capability and more expensive to operate. It orders a switch to 'cats and traps'.

4. The same UK company decides that it will lose too much business switching from VSTOL to conventional and so it raises the amount of money the conversion will actually cost to 'cats and traps'.

5. The Government has to reverse the decision and pay for the same UK company for the work they did for the 'cats and traps' work.

6. The UK company then use any spare capacity designed into the ship (wiring looms and conduits) to ensure that it is the VSTOL version or nothing.

If 80% is true then it is a scandal. If 50% is true its shocking. If 20% is true they are still troughing!

LJ :cool:

[Hangarshuffle]

Its going to get worse and worse. Next year, regardless of who gets the keys to numbers 10 and 11, more hard facts/hurdles have to be faced....likely the defence budget will be squeezed more, sighted as it is on my tax summary between National debt interest and Criminal justice (whatever that is), I mean it spells it our clearly. No money for it.
The carriers seemed to have been hatched out a very long time ago now. Probably wasn't a good idea at the time and seems even less and less now.
To me, it shows just how far away from practical reality the politicians, planners and senior officers who don't effectively manage these projects actually are. No effective scoping for it.

I'm trying to now imagine what the average person looks like, from the air teams I worked with in the 80's 90's and noughties. We are all middle aged/old/dead/gone....no longer in service.
That hard core that hung on and on for this are now gone. Have to start from scratch, and the facilities haven't kept up either. No manpower or training scoped for it.

And no aircraft either.


You cant do this sort of operation on the cheap. The country cant afford it anyway. Looks increasingly now like a vanity mirror.

[NutLoose]

Oddly enough I always thought the purpose of a warship was to wage war... Without the weapons base it was designed to carry it is just a flat topped cruise ship.

[melmothtw]

We're introducing a new aircraft type while we are also introducing a new carrier (maybe two). There is simply no way that they were both going to arrive at exactly the same time, so we were either going to have folks complaining that we have the jets but no ship to fly them off, or (as is the case) we will have the ships but no jets to fly off them.

That was always going to be the case, and the BBC report alters nothing in terms of these plans for the projected IOCs of the aircraft and/or the carriers.

The BBC was incorrect when it said that the intended first order for 14 has been reduced to just 4. The '14' number comes from the Main Gate 4 acquisition approval, with the four ordered being the first batch from this first batch - this was always the plan.

And what does it matter that the USMC will be flying off the ships first? As was made clear in the report, the Royal Navy needs to build up its entire carrier capability (logistics, CONOPS, flight deck movements, maintainers, etc), and having USMC jets (perhaps even piloted by UK crews) on the ship allows the navy to do this, and actually somewhat de-risks the programme for the UK.

I watched the BBC report, and saw nothing new or particularly interesting in it to be honest.

[david parry]

Think the USMC will have enough flight deck area in there own back yard.;) They are an 11-carrier Navy in a 15-carrier world.” some 4.5 acre per flat top:) Why would they be interested in a deployment on ours???? Except for the Alcohol!!!!

[Courtney Mil]

Agreed, Mel.

[WhiteOvies]

Mel,

Spot on and obvious to people who have read around and understand the subject better. There is also a misconception that with QE in the water she should be ready to start full ops next week.

David,

Actually the USMC often struggle to get the deck time from the USN that you might expect. That was part of the reason why MAG-13 embarked their AV8-Bs in Ark Royal in 2010, where a lot of USMC pilots got their first deck landings (covered in the National Geographic Ark Royal series). An F-35B will not be going anywhere near a CVN and their LHDs are becoming old and tired. A deployement on QE is a benefit to everyone as Melmothw mentioned.

Hangarshuffle,

Some of us who worked fast jets off CVS are still very much involved with regenerating the capability. This is an area that the RN is very focussed on and has actually taken significant measures to address. The AH Branch has been one of the most forward leaning in this respect.

[Heathrow Harry]

maybe we can get the US taxpayer to pay for the extra capability - we're the "outsourced" capability - like Air Tanker......

if it works we can do the same for all sorts of people - the PLA (N) for example and may the Indians - all sorts of people who need to work up carrier capability

we might even make a profit.......

[WhiteOvies]

HH - I'm not sure what the contractural arrangements were but hosting Spanish, Italian and USMC Sqaudrons on the CVS was always an option, particularly when Herrick diverted the Harrier Forces attention (rightly) on supporting the effort. It allowed the ship's company to retain it's experience with fast jet flight ops and gave allies an alternative option when their own decks were unavailable.

If the Indian SHARs were ever an option I'm sure many people would be delighted to see it happen, however I understand that they're being replaced with Mig-29s for the Indian Navy, so not really an option (stopping being the issue rather than taking off).

[david parry]

Had to laugh and put my tongue in cheek, to some of the above comments. It was fine to cross ops, with our friends over the pond . With their Tooms , Skyraiders, Corsairs, Skyhawks. Us with Buccs and Tooms etc. When our Carriers and flight deck crew expertise were, like for like (except for tonnage) Times have changed, and we have non of the above capabilities . The new Chockheads and flight deck party ,on the block .Might get some much needed experience in;) though

[SpazSinbad]

Twas thus ever: A4Gs arrested and catted whilst the S2s did touch 'n goes HMS Hermes 04 Nov 1968 whilst MELBOURNE still in refit to accept said aircrafts. Other pic shows HMS Victorious Fly One with various. First Skyhawk to arrest / cat aboard HMAS Melbourne was a demo in May 1965 - we wuz sold.

LCDR Charles W. D. Ward, Jr. First USN A4B landing on HMAS Melbourne - 20 May 1965 (HD) Published on Mar 29, 2014
"Charles William Darcey Ward, Jr. - Flew the first US Navy A4B landing on HMAS Melbourne CV-21. On 20 May 1965 a USN Skyhawk, BuNo.144874, demonstrated deck landing qualities by carrying out landings and catapulting from HMAS Melbourne. LCDR Ward was Officer-in-Charge of VA-113 Det Q aboard the USS Bennington."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuU6dP_Irh0

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/A4G888hermes1968forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/A4G888hermes1968forum.jpg.html)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/FlyOneVICTORIOUS1967forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/FlyOneVICTORIOUS1967forum.jpg.html)

[david parry]

Lucky enough to be on both above carriers at that time;) nice to see the Buccaneer of 801 squadron again, and a Sea Vixen of 893 squadron. on the Vic Also Sea Vixens of 892 squadron on the Happy H

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

look on the bright side. At least when the airborne noise generators arrive, the Navy will have plenty of gash ear defenders, courtesy of Percy P: MoD annual report show £5.7BN was wasted last year after ordering errors | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857015/MoD-wasted-6m-earplugs-didn-t-work-Figures-buried-annual-report-5-7BILLION-wasted-year-string-ordering-errors.html)

[ORAC]

AW&ST: U.S. Marines Could Play Major Role In U.K. Carrier Operations (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-marines-could-play-major-role-uk-carrier-operations)

Senior officers in both the U.S. Marine Corps and British Royal Navy agree that Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) will operate regularly from the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The question is how many fighters and when, and it appears to be a sensitive issue due to the impending release of the U.K.’s Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR).

One option under study is to attach a Marine F-35B squadron full-time to the U.K. carrier force, alongside the two planned British squadrons, according to a source close to the U.S. Navy aviation community. While senior officers say it is much too early to focus on any one joint-force structure, they acknowledge many options are being considered, and the Marines specifically identify the British ships as potential bases in their most recent aviation plan.............

The Marines have the opposite problem to the U.K.: They plan to acquire 353 F-35Bs, but the only U.S. Navy decks available to them in the 2020s will be 11 LHD Wasp- and LHA America-class ships that normally carry six fighters each. In 2013, Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, then-Marine Corps commandant for aviation, said the Corps’ F-35s would fly short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) sorties on “a small percentage” of missions. As a result, the Marines appear eager to share the new British carriers as a way of building and sustaining shipboard experience.

The need for Marine assets to make full use of the carriers will depend on several factors, including how many aircraft U.K. squadrons can generate sustainably. Royal Navy officers are unwilling to state how many aircraft will be at sea at any time, saying only that the ships will have the “largest practical” air wing.......

On Blount’s chart, the carrier strike F-35 force—the largest in any of the mixes—is described as “U.K. plus allied mix.” Blount says this is nothing unusual. “We expect to plug-and-play with coalition forces—this is the way wars are fought today,” Blount tells Aviation Week. “We expect the Marines to be aboard the Queen Elizabeth class, to get the most bang for the buck.”

Blount says it is too soon to expect firm details of the Marines’ involvement. “I talk to [Marine deputy commandant for aviation, Lt. Gen. Jon] Davis all the time. He’s interested in our carriers, and I’m interested in Wasps. But given where this capability is, in terms of development, there’s no memorandum of understanding, or anything like that.”..........

[glad rag]

It's not just the political snouts in the troughs. Look at our businesses bidding for Government contracts. If you take the carriers ALLEGEDLY:

1. We order 2 huge carriers well over budget from a UK company.

2. We decide that we should buy VSTOL to support British engine makers and the same UK company that has a larger share in the VSTOL version than the conventional version.

3. The Government decide that the VSTOL version is going to be too expensive, with less capability and more expensive to operate. It orders a switch to 'cats and traps'.

4. The same UK company decides that it will lose too much business switching from VSTOL to conventional and so it raises the amount of money the conversion will actually cost to 'cats and traps'.

5. The Government has to reverse the decision and pay for the same UK company for the work they did for the 'cats and traps' work.

6. The UK company then use any spare capacity designed into the ship (wiring looms and conduits) to ensure that it is the VSTOL version or nothing.

If 80% is true then it is a scandal. If 50% is true its shocking. If 20% is true they are still troughing!

LJ :cool:


Worth repeating :D.

[Martin the Martian]

So we permanently have a USMC squadron attached to our carrier air wings, which means that our own Dave force doesn't need to as big, so we buy less and save money.

Brilliant! That's a gong for somebody, I'm sure.

[Lonewolf_50]

We have a special relationship, have for quite some time.

Perhaps we should just see this proposal as reaffirming the special relationship and reversing some of our current president's antipathy towards the British.

I hope this works out well and makes interoperability stronger, STANAGs or not.