Future Carrier (Including Costs)
F-35B has a significantly higher sortie rate than the C
Statistics are an interesting thing.....it takes more than a single snapshot to be usable as reliable indicators of prolonged time periods.
Did you consider the issues raised by the POGO Report with any real thought or are you just throwing out a factoid without context and thinking it means something?
I have seen the serviceability game played at every single Flight Operation I have flown.
The ultimate was walking out upon the ramp to my assigned aircraft....a CH-47C that had been put up as "Flyable".....which it was.....with just a single engine hung on one side and none on the other.
Take a whack at the POGO Report and take its comments apart....they might have it all wrong I suppose.
Did you consider the issues raised by the POGO Report with any real thought or are you just throwing out a factoid without context and thinking it means something?
I have seen the serviceability game played at every single Flight Operation I have flown.
The ultimate was walking out upon the ramp to my assigned aircraft....a CH-47C that had been put up as "Flyable".....which it was.....with just a single engine hung on one side and none on the other.
Take a whack at the POGO Report and take its comments apart....they might have it all wrong I suppose.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by A56
The Falklands War was 38 years ago - halfway between 1944 and today - you can't keep trotting that out as a reason to indulge in carriers
They can only be in one area at a time when what is needed on a daily basis is a widespread, even worldwide, distribution of vessels.
They can only be in one area at a time when what is needed on a daily basis is a widespread, even worldwide, distribution of vessels.
Originally Posted by SASless
Are the UK F-35's meeting the Bench Marks set for them in the acquisition process that led to their being selected for service on these two Carriers?
It would appear the US Navy is not having what could be described as stellar success with theirs?
It would appear the US Navy is not having what could be described as stellar success with theirs?
Originally Posted by peter we
Its 105 sorties on the first day and 450 in the first week, I think...Higher than many carriers achieved in the Gulf Wars
F-35B has a significantly higher sortie rate than the C
F-35B has a significantly higher sortie rate than the C
Originally Posted by Easy Street
... because it has to come back more often for fuel, and doesn’t take as long to fill up when it does?
Anyway - Happy New Year. A busy carrier year!
likewise I would love to see similar regarding your claim it has a 510NM combat radius. A link to a website or something?
Is there any evidence that the F-35B has a ‘significantly’ higher sortie generation capability than its brothers? What gives it this inherent capability that the A and C model do not have?
likewise I would love to see similar regarding your claim it has a 510NM combat radius. A link to a website or something?
Pg 18 and 19.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...R_Dec_2017.pdf
secondly, I wonder what 617 would say to the sortie generation and range numbers in this doc...
I think you mean " more sorties than a C"
I guess because they don't spend as much time flying circuits to trap and they don't have to be lined up for the cat either - you have 4 lined up on spots on the deck and they land one after each other pretty quickly. Then you don't have to hook them up to the cat to launch - each one just rolls forward under its own steam (soree...!)
I guess because they don't spend as much time flying circuits to trap and they don't have to be lined up for the cat either - you have 4 lined up on spots on the deck and they land one after each other pretty quickly. Then you don't have to hook them up to the cat to launch - each one just rolls forward under its own steam (soree...!)
If I practice Touch and Go's from the Carrier Deck....say Ten in one session....is that one Sortie or Ten Sorties?
The problem with Statistics is how the raw data is compiled.
Mission readiness.....Day VFR....touch and go's does not require much in the way of specialized equipment thus much easier to show a high readiness rate.
So....the comparison or analysis has to understand the context and basis of the data.
The problem with Statistics is how the raw data is compiled.
Mission readiness.....Day VFR....touch and go's does not require much in the way of specialized equipment thus much easier to show a high readiness rate.
So....the comparison or analysis has to understand the context and basis of the data.
Couldn't agree more - IIRC the UK logged a lot of landings and "operations" but not a lot of hours?
So maybe like a lift - up and then down, up and then down................. Valuable practice but not what you'd be doing in a real fight
So maybe like a lift - up and then down, up and then down................. Valuable practice but not what you'd be doing in a real fight
If I practice Touch and Go's from the Carrier Deck....say Ten in one session....is that one Sortie or Ten Sorties?
The problem with Statistics is how the raw data is compiled.
Mission readiness.....Day VFR....touch and go's does not require much in the way of specialized equipment thus much easier to show a high readiness rate.
So....the comparison or analysis has to understand the context and basis of the data.
The problem with Statistics is how the raw data is compiled.
Mission readiness.....Day VFR....touch and go's does not require much in the way of specialized equipment thus much easier to show a high readiness rate.
So....the comparison or analysis has to understand the context and basis of the data.
So the B is required to perform 6 sorties a day versus 4 for the C, fiddling the numbers won't past the test, it has to do that. I presume the requirement is less for the C due to additional maintenance.
My point is not that the flights are being done.....just that trying to count them as "Operational Sorties" without acknowledging the difference between the actual kinds of flights being conducted is ignoring a fallacy being perpetrated by a shallow analysis of the Data.
And of course a chopper base/platform chalks up incredible movements: Detmold with AAC for example. Exciting for ATC.
Last edited by langleybaston; 4th Jan 2020 at 15:27. Reason: for hopper read chopper
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/de...rriers-1369551
Fears raised over £269m aerial radar system that will be the 'eyes and ears' of Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers
Crowsnest, the most advanced aerial early warning sensor ever built for the Senior Service, is reportedly ‘too sensitive to use’. The state-of-the-art tech, which will be fitted onto Merlin Mark 2 helicopters, will be the ‘eyes and ears’ for Britain’s two £6.2bn aircraft carriers when on operations.
Sources close to the project have warned IT issues with the sensor array could delay the programme’s rollout, which has already seen flight trials pushed back by several months.
Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, which is leading the project with defence firm Thales, insisted the hi-tech kit would be ready in time for supercarrier HMS Queen Elizabeth’s first mission next year. But an insider said: ‘People are running around like blue-arsed flies on this. They’re so far behind on the entire system we can’t train the flight crews because the simulators aren’t ready yet. We’re having to write software for stuff that isn’t even ready.’........
A report by Whitehall spending watchdogs at the National Audit Office in 2017 rated the project as ‘amber’, meaning successful delivery ‘appeared feasible’ but that ‘significant issues’ already existed.
A high-ranking naval officer told The News delays were a worry and warned of a ‘reluctance’ within industry to seek ‘independent help’ when issues arose. The senior officer added: ‘It will happen, it’s got to happen… Crowsnest is a terribly important part of the whole carrier strike capability.’
Fears raised over £269m aerial radar system that will be the 'eyes and ears' of Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers
Crowsnest, the most advanced aerial early warning sensor ever built for the Senior Service, is reportedly ‘too sensitive to use’. The state-of-the-art tech, which will be fitted onto Merlin Mark 2 helicopters, will be the ‘eyes and ears’ for Britain’s two £6.2bn aircraft carriers when on operations.
Sources close to the project have warned IT issues with the sensor array could delay the programme’s rollout, which has already seen flight trials pushed back by several months.
Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, which is leading the project with defence firm Thales, insisted the hi-tech kit would be ready in time for supercarrier HMS Queen Elizabeth’s first mission next year. But an insider said: ‘People are running around like blue-arsed flies on this. They’re so far behind on the entire system we can’t train the flight crews because the simulators aren’t ready yet. We’re having to write software for stuff that isn’t even ready.’........
A report by Whitehall spending watchdogs at the National Audit Office in 2017 rated the project as ‘amber’, meaning successful delivery ‘appeared feasible’ but that ‘significant issues’ already existed.
A high-ranking naval officer told The News delays were a worry and warned of a ‘reluctance’ within industry to seek ‘independent help’ when issues arose. The senior officer added: ‘It will happen, it’s got to happen… Crowsnest is a terribly important part of the whole carrier strike capability.’