Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Not only are there fishead watchkeeping ( OOD and PWO ) considerations to add to the DC and cleaning task there is also a service wide need to have enough sea-going billets to produce both Senior Rates and mid-seniority officers. Where will MEO, WEO and their Chief Tiffs come from if there are no sea billets for A M/W EO (D M/W EO idc)?
With 50 ish bodies, and allowing for some dayworkers, you have about 14 or 15 watchkeepers, of all trades, in a 3 watch system and 20 ish if the ship is in permanent Defence Watches.
Babcock are dreaming.
N
With 50 ish bodies, and allowing for some dayworkers, you have about 14 or 15 watchkeepers, of all trades, in a 3 watch system and 20 ish if the ship is in permanent Defence Watches.
Babcock are dreaming.
N
None of this is new, YARD were pitching a 50 man frigate in the late 80s, early 90s. Nothing came of it for the exact reasons outlined above.
The following 2 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
Re the Chinook - a quick off-thread question: what are the requirements for lashing a heli on-deck prior to offloading pax?
I ask because - after the farce where an inexperienced-on-type Sqn Ldr tried lifting the back end of Invincible when he 'forgot' to do the after-landing checks prior to waving in the lashing party (AFCS - 'OFF') - we would have a non-stop badgering from FLYCO on every arrival about checks. I understand their point, as it was only the quick thinking of the No.1 crewman that saved at least one life. As for the now-potentially-damaged Chinook: where would you choose to divert if you were 12nm or so away from West Freugh? That's right - a farmer's field in N Ireland... couldn't make it up.
I ask because - after the farce where an inexperienced-on-type Sqn Ldr tried lifting the back end of Invincible when he 'forgot' to do the after-landing checks prior to waving in the lashing party (AFCS - 'OFF') - we would have a non-stop badgering from FLYCO on every arrival about checks. I understand their point, as it was only the quick thinking of the No.1 crewman that saved at least one life. As for the now-potentially-damaged Chinook: where would you choose to divert if you were 12nm or so away from West Freugh? That's right - a farmer's field in N Ireland... couldn't make it up.
Back in the day, fhe basic principle was that nothing happenened the requisite number of nylon lashings had been fitted. Pilot and Marshaller/FDO would signal prior agreement to the lashing numbers moving in, the idea being that the pilot would have the aircraft in a state to be lashed down. Once lashed, Mum is then free to manoeuvre. The the FDO or marshaller might initiate pax off load by requesting in move of a guide or signal agreement to the pilot request for persons to transit under the disc from the a/c. Both pilot approval/ assent and marshaller/FDO approval assent were needed before movement.
N
Thanks Bengo - matches my recollections exactly. Exceptions were made for ships that were alongside, ISTR - maybe that's the case in the above instance.
they know they can get a quick service at Rosyth
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Yesterday 8 F-35 jets embarked on @HMSPWLS in the North Sea ahead of exercise #SteadfastDefender2024 in the High North.
This is the first time HMS Prince of Wales has embarked an air group.
11 helicopters also deployed across the Carrier Strike Group.
This is the first time HMS Prince of Wales has embarked an air group.
11 helicopters also deployed across the Carrier Strike Group.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The last mission for former BNS Garcia D'Avila (RFA Sir Galahad).
The hull will be sunk in an exercise using Penguin missiles fired from a Seahawk Helicopters and Mk48 torpedoes fired from a submarine.
The ship was towed this Sunday.
The hull will be sunk in an exercise using Penguin missiles fired from a Seahawk Helicopters and Mk48 torpedoes fired from a submarine.
The ship was towed this Sunday.
I remember watching that ship launch.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud_and_Blunder
Re the Chinook - a quick off-thread question: what are the requirements for lashing a heli on-deck prior to offloading pax?
I ask because - after the farce where an inexperienced-on-type Sqn Ldr tried lifting the back end of Invincible when he 'forgot' to do the after-landing checks prior to waving in the lashing party (AFCS - 'OFF') - we would have a non-stop badgering from FLYCO on every arrival about checks. I understand their point, as it was only the quick thinking of the No.1 crewman that saved at least one life. As for the now-potentially-damaged Chinook: where would you choose to divert if you were 12nm or so away from West Freugh? That's right - a farmer's field in N Ireland... couldn't make it up.
Back in the day, fhe basic principle was that nothing happenened the requisite number of nylon lashings had been fitted. Pilot and Marshaller/FDO would signal prior agreement to the lashing numbers moving in, the idea being that the pilot would have the aircraft in a state to be lashed down. Once lashed, Mum is then free to manoeuvre. The the FDO or marshaller might initiate pax off load by requesting in move of a guide or signal agreement to the pilot request for persons to transit under the disc from the a/c. Both pilot approval/ assent and marshaller/FDO approval assent were needed before movement.
N
Originally Posted by Thud_and_Blunder
Re the Chinook - a quick off-thread question: what are the requirements for lashing a heli on-deck prior to offloading pax?
I ask because - after the farce where an inexperienced-on-type Sqn Ldr tried lifting the back end of Invincible when he 'forgot' to do the after-landing checks prior to waving in the lashing party (AFCS - 'OFF') - we would have a non-stop badgering from FLYCO on every arrival about checks. I understand their point, as it was only the quick thinking of the No.1 crewman that saved at least one life. As for the now-potentially-damaged Chinook: where would you choose to divert if you were 12nm or so away from West Freugh? That's right - a farmer's field in N Ireland... couldn't make it up.
Back in the day, fhe basic principle was that nothing happenened the requisite number of nylon lashings had been fitted. Pilot and Marshaller/FDO would signal prior agreement to the lashing numbers moving in, the idea being that the pilot would have the aircraft in a state to be lashed down. Once lashed, Mum is then free to manoeuvre. The the FDO or marshaller might initiate pax off load by requesting in move of a guide or signal agreement to the pilot request for persons to transit under the disc from the a/c. Both pilot approval/ assent and marshaller/FDO approval assent were needed before movement.
N
That's the one, Widger - all because he didn't do a simple checklist item.
Re the Chinook - a quick off-thread question: what are the requirements for lashing a heli on-deck prior to offloading pax?
I ask because - after the farce where an inexperienced-on-type Sqn Ldr tried lifting the back end of Invincible when he 'forgot' to do the after-landing checks prior to waving in the lashing party (AFCS - 'OFF') - we would have a non-stop badgering from FLYCO on every arrival about checks. I understand their point, as it was only the quick thinking of the No.1 crewman that saved at least one life. As for the now-potentially-damaged Chinook: where would you choose to divert if you were 12nm or so away from West Freugh? That's right - a farmer's field in N Ireland... couldn't make it up.
I ask because - after the farce where an inexperienced-on-type Sqn Ldr tried lifting the back end of Invincible when he 'forgot' to do the after-landing checks prior to waving in the lashing party (AFCS - 'OFF') - we would have a non-stop badgering from FLYCO on every arrival about checks. I understand their point, as it was only the quick thinking of the No.1 crewman that saved at least one life. As for the now-potentially-damaged Chinook: where would you choose to divert if you were 12nm or so away from West Freugh? That's right - a farmer's field in N Ireland... couldn't make it up.
Mog
Same exercise that a pair of Buccs dumped fuel all over the deck while aircraft were burning and turning. Lots of chockheads running around waving their arms. Cdr Air just calmly said ‘pah, if they were F1-11s they could have lit it as well’
or was that you or Soapy I heard Mog?
or was that you or Soapy I heard Mog?
The following 2 users liked this post by Mogwi:
Thread Starter
Air Defence and ASW are on the menu:
Just for fun:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science - Lord Kelvin
For as long as there have been carrier related discussions on various forums, people have claimed that because a maritime task group can be supported by long range aircraft such AWACS and MPA types, and tankers, then the same must be true for fighters, and that there is no advantage to having aircraft close to the shore for dealing with land targets. Ongoing operations in the Red Sea suggest otherwise.
Before he went off piste and became unaware of the value of low observerability and advanced avionics, and the advances made in V/STOL aircraft propulsion and controls, Sharkey Ward often made sense. In Sea Harrier Over The Falklands he says that when he was in a MOD job post Falklands, he pointed out that:
To put fighter cover over the fleet at just a few hundred miles would take up all the tanker resources of the RAF and most of the fighters.
He does not develop this argument further. He does not say exactly what he means - the same level of cover as provided by multiple US carriers each with two Squadrons of Tomcats? Despite being a fairly numerate Engineering student when I first purchased and read his book, I have never tried to do the speed/time/distance calculations - until just over a week ago.
Scenario
Vlad The Invader and his henchmen are on the rampage. Eastern Europe, and the Baltic States are in his sights as she seeks to recreate the Russian (ie pre Soviet) empire. He also plans to attack Norway to seize airfields and ports with access to the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic beyond. LANDCOM has asked SACEUR to request transatlantic reinforcement, and protecting the crisis response shipping falls to MARCOM. MARCOM also has maritime logistics within European waters to protect, as well as the option of using amphibious forces. Moscow makes noises about NATO reinforcements being a threat to peace and threatens to sink them. Although the Russian surface fleet is in a sorry state, it does possess surface combatants with long range missiles. A more serious threat is posted by the Northern Fleet's submarine force and Russia bombers, coming around the North Cape and losing of multiple anti ship missiles. A number of vessels that are part of the Crisis Response Shipping are in the Norwegian Sea, approximately half way between the UK and Norway. Fifty nautical miles to the South there is one of our carriers.
Assumptions
I am assuming that the airfields in the UK and Norway are both 300nm away, that land and carrier jets both have three hour endurance, that they both transit at a speed of 600kt, and that technical issues occur at a rate proportional to the time in the air. The planned CAP station is 50nm ahead of the ships loaded with reinforcements.
No CAP
Without a CAP and incoming raid will have to be dealt with by either jets on deck alert or ones scrambled from ashore. Assuming an average 600kt transit the deck alert jets will be on station in ten minutes, but the land based ones will take thirty.
24 hour CAP
Carrier launched:
Transit takes 10 min THEN 2 hours 40 min (160 min) on station before return to the carrier
In 24 hour (1440) min: 1440/160 sortie pairs needed for CAP
= 9 sorties pairs
= 18 sorties
If there are eight jets embarked, then that is 18/8 sorties per jet per aircraft
= 2.35 sorties per day for each jet – achievable
7.05 hours airborne per jet every day
Land based 300nm away
Transit takes 30 mins, as does return, leaving 120 min on station
1440/120 = 12 sortie pairs
= 24 sorties
If squadron of eight aircraft then 3 sorties per day for each jet = 9 hours airborne
If the shipping to be protected moves and is now 400nm away
Transit takes 40 min, as does return, leaving 100 min on station
1440/100 = 14.4 sortie pairs per day
=28.8 sorties
28.8/8 = 3.6 sorties per jet every day = 10.8 hours hours airborne
If the shipping to be protected moves again and is now 500nm away
Transit now takes 50 mins – so time on CAP now 80 min
1440/80 = 18 sortie pairs needed
= 36 sorties
36/8 = 4.5 sorties per jet per day = 13.5 hours airborne
If the shipping moves again and is now 600nm away
60 min on station
1440/60 = 24 sortie pairs
=48 sorties
=6 sorties per aircraft per day = 18 hours airborne!
If we assume that the aircraft cannot do this, and assume that two hours maintenance are needed for every flight however, then each jet can only fly for 8 hours per day - 480 mins. Are more jets needed?
No of aircraft needed = no of sorties x sortie time/Max flying time per aircraft
In our case N = S180/480, which can be simplified to N = 0.375 S
Using the figures from above:
Carrier 100nm from CAP station: N = 6.75(round up to 7 aircraft)
Land based 300nm from CAP station: N = 9 aircraft
Land based 400nm from CAP station: N = 10.8 (round up to 11 aircraft)
Land based 500nm from CAP station: N = 13.5 (round up to 14 aircraft)
Land based 600nm from CAP station: N = 18 aircraft
Conclusions
1. The value of having your air defence aircraft near, as part of the force, is clearly demonstrable. Apart from question of a single CAP or a pair of aircraft on alert, there is the issue of what if you need additional aircraft to deal with mass attacks.
2. Even a small carrier, or a larger carrier with a small number of fixed wing aircraft, can play an important and potentially war winning air defence/AAW role.
3. A larger carrier and/or larger number of jets allows you to do far more than a single CAP at 100nm.
Just for fun:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science - Lord Kelvin
For as long as there have been carrier related discussions on various forums, people have claimed that because a maritime task group can be supported by long range aircraft such AWACS and MPA types, and tankers, then the same must be true for fighters, and that there is no advantage to having aircraft close to the shore for dealing with land targets. Ongoing operations in the Red Sea suggest otherwise.
Before he went off piste and became unaware of the value of low observerability and advanced avionics, and the advances made in V/STOL aircraft propulsion and controls, Sharkey Ward often made sense. In Sea Harrier Over The Falklands he says that when he was in a MOD job post Falklands, he pointed out that:
To put fighter cover over the fleet at just a few hundred miles would take up all the tanker resources of the RAF and most of the fighters.
He does not develop this argument further. He does not say exactly what he means - the same level of cover as provided by multiple US carriers each with two Squadrons of Tomcats? Despite being a fairly numerate Engineering student when I first purchased and read his book, I have never tried to do the speed/time/distance calculations - until just over a week ago.
Scenario
Vlad The Invader and his henchmen are on the rampage. Eastern Europe, and the Baltic States are in his sights as she seeks to recreate the Russian (ie pre Soviet) empire. He also plans to attack Norway to seize airfields and ports with access to the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic beyond. LANDCOM has asked SACEUR to request transatlantic reinforcement, and protecting the crisis response shipping falls to MARCOM. MARCOM also has maritime logistics within European waters to protect, as well as the option of using amphibious forces. Moscow makes noises about NATO reinforcements being a threat to peace and threatens to sink them. Although the Russian surface fleet is in a sorry state, it does possess surface combatants with long range missiles. A more serious threat is posted by the Northern Fleet's submarine force and Russia bombers, coming around the North Cape and losing of multiple anti ship missiles. A number of vessels that are part of the Crisis Response Shipping are in the Norwegian Sea, approximately half way between the UK and Norway. Fifty nautical miles to the South there is one of our carriers.
Assumptions
I am assuming that the airfields in the UK and Norway are both 300nm away, that land and carrier jets both have three hour endurance, that they both transit at a speed of 600kt, and that technical issues occur at a rate proportional to the time in the air. The planned CAP station is 50nm ahead of the ships loaded with reinforcements.
No CAP
Without a CAP and incoming raid will have to be dealt with by either jets on deck alert or ones scrambled from ashore. Assuming an average 600kt transit the deck alert jets will be on station in ten minutes, but the land based ones will take thirty.
24 hour CAP
Carrier launched:
Transit takes 10 min THEN 2 hours 40 min (160 min) on station before return to the carrier
In 24 hour (1440) min: 1440/160 sortie pairs needed for CAP
= 9 sorties pairs
= 18 sorties
If there are eight jets embarked, then that is 18/8 sorties per jet per aircraft
= 2.35 sorties per day for each jet – achievable
7.05 hours airborne per jet every day
Land based 300nm away
Transit takes 30 mins, as does return, leaving 120 min on station
1440/120 = 12 sortie pairs
= 24 sorties
If squadron of eight aircraft then 3 sorties per day for each jet = 9 hours airborne
If the shipping to be protected moves and is now 400nm away
Transit takes 40 min, as does return, leaving 100 min on station
1440/100 = 14.4 sortie pairs per day
=28.8 sorties
28.8/8 = 3.6 sorties per jet every day = 10.8 hours hours airborne
If the shipping to be protected moves again and is now 500nm away
Transit now takes 50 mins – so time on CAP now 80 min
1440/80 = 18 sortie pairs needed
= 36 sorties
36/8 = 4.5 sorties per jet per day = 13.5 hours airborne
If the shipping moves again and is now 600nm away
60 min on station
1440/60 = 24 sortie pairs
=48 sorties
=6 sorties per aircraft per day = 18 hours airborne!
If we assume that the aircraft cannot do this, and assume that two hours maintenance are needed for every flight however, then each jet can only fly for 8 hours per day - 480 mins. Are more jets needed?
No of aircraft needed = no of sorties x sortie time/Max flying time per aircraft
In our case N = S180/480, which can be simplified to N = 0.375 S
Using the figures from above:
Carrier 100nm from CAP station: N = 6.75(round up to 7 aircraft)
Land based 300nm from CAP station: N = 9 aircraft
Land based 400nm from CAP station: N = 10.8 (round up to 11 aircraft)
Land based 500nm from CAP station: N = 13.5 (round up to 14 aircraft)
Land based 600nm from CAP station: N = 18 aircraft
Conclusions
1. The value of having your air defence aircraft near, as part of the force, is clearly demonstrable. Apart from question of a single CAP or a pair of aircraft on alert, there is the issue of what if you need additional aircraft to deal with mass attacks.
2. Even a small carrier, or a larger carrier with a small number of fixed wing aircraft, can play an important and potentially war winning air defence/AAW role.
3. A larger carrier and/or larger number of jets allows you to do far more than a single CAP at 100nm.
Would the availability of spares and repair capability also not have a bearing? Can a carrier based force achieve the same levels of serviceability as a land based force?
It's the availability of jets that would worry me -https://www.defenceeye.co.uk/2024/01/12/delivery-delays-hit-britains-f-35-build-up/
Just looking at WEBF's numbers how long can they keep up 2+ sorties a day on all 8 aircraft?. Plus, of course , they can't do anything else - flying CAP is it. You're going to need quite a few more aircraft for strike or to reinforce the CAP if things suddenly turn hot.
We need a lot more aircraft and we need them delivered quickly - not dribs and drabs
Just looking at WEBF's numbers how long can they keep up 2+ sorties a day on all 8 aircraft?. Plus, of course , they can't do anything else - flying CAP is it. You're going to need quite a few more aircraft for strike or to reinforce the CAP if things suddenly turn hot.
We need a lot more aircraft and we need them delivered quickly - not dribs and drabs
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
HMS Damond embarking replacement Sea Viper missiles in Gibraltar this morning ahead of returning to the Red Sea soon.
Gibraltar once again demonstrating its value as a forward support base.
Gibraltar once again demonstrating its value as a forward support base.
Forward Supply Base?
Its 3600 km from the nearest point on the Red Sea - AND you have to go through a canal........
Helsinki or Lagos are closer..................
Its 3600 km from the nearest point on the Red Sea - AND you have to go through a canal........
Helsinki or Lagos are closer..................